The Sayings Gospel Q

Already in antiquity, it was well known that there was substantial overlap between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. During the nineteenth century, scholars generally agreed that Mark’s Gospel came first and that the other two gospels drew upon Mark. However, scholars struggled to explain why Matthew and Luke shared material that was not present in Mark. Rather than assuming that Luke read Matthew (or vice versa), scholars theorized that there was another source that Matthew and Luke used independently. This hypothetical source came to be known as Q, which stands for “Quelle,” the German word for “source.”

Why do scholars believe that there was another source for Matthew and Luke?

The idea that Matthew and Luke drew upon Mark and another unknown source is known as the two-source hypothesis. This hypothesis has been in existence since the nineteenth century, and it remains the most popular solution to the Synoptic problem, although there are alternatives. Material that is shared by all three Synoptic Gospels has come to be known as the Synoptic triple tradition. Material shared by Matthew and Luke has come to be known as the Synoptic double tradition. The overlapping material in the double tradition occasionally agrees word for word and sometimes appears in the same order. This suggests that Matthew and Luke could not have arrived at this material independently.

Scholars have reconstructed Q from the material shared in Matthew and Luke, a total of approximately two hundred verses located between Luke 3:1 and Luke 22:30. Q scholars think that Luke has better preserved Q’s order. As a result, Q’s chapter and verse numbers correspond to Luke’s. The standard reconstruction of Q is the Critical Edition of Q by James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg (2000). This publication has received wide acceptance but was not intended as the final word in Q studies.

The reconstructed Q looks very different from the Synoptic Gospels.

(1) Q contains very little narrative. Some of the (fragments of) narrative passages often assigned to Q are among the most disputed Q texts: Q // Luke 3:2b–3a; 3:21–22; 4:16. This dispute arises from the possibility that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark rather than Q for these passages.

(2) Q is very short, does not exhibit a discernible plot development, and has very little narrative structure. Instead, it appears to have been organized into topical groupings of sayings. The main narrative segments are found in the reconstructed document’s first half: Q // Luke 4:1–13 (temptation narrative) and 7:1–10 (the healing of a centurion’s servant). Even these two episodes have as their focal point the statements of Jesus: Q // Luke 4:1–13 is a dialogue, and it is not clear that Q // Luke 7:10 (the mention of the servant’s healing) can or should be reconstructed. The only narrative segment in the document’s second half that can be securely reconstructed is a basic setting for a speech of Jesus: Q // Luke 11:14–15.

(3) Q does not appear to have had a passion narrative.

All of these observations set Q apart from the Synoptic Gospels and place it in the same category as the extracanonical Gospel of Thomas. Similar to the reconstructed Q, this text does not have a discernible plot and consists of sayings of Jesus, sometimes (but not always) attached to basic narrative settings. The reconstructed Q document belongs to the genre of instruction and exhibits affinities with biblical wisdom literature. The document’s many apocalyptic passages and motifs are not an anomalous feature. The discovery of the Qumran document 4QInstruction has demonstrated that wisdom instructions in late Second Temple Judaism could exhibit an apocalyptic worldview. The existence of 4QInstruction supplements the evidence offered by the Gospel of Thomas, further anchoring Q in extant works of literature.