The Gospel of Q or Q Document is a hypothetical collection of Jesus’ sayings that supposedly antedates the four Gospels. The Q hypothesis comes from the German word Quelle, meaning “sources.” Q was used heavily by the Jesus Seminar to arrive at their radical conclusions. Since Q allegedly contains sayings, not works or miracles of Jesus, it is used as a basis for denying the resurrection. Since the earliest Q contained no references to Jesus’ deity, this too is held to be a later mythological invention. If true, this would undermine the historic apologetic for Christianity.
Supposed States and Dates of Q
According to Q proponent Burton Mack, there were really four successive states of Q: proto-Ql, Ql, proto-Q2, and Q2. The gospel(s) of Q supposedly developed between 30 and 65, before any canonical Gospels appeared. Thus, Q is supposed to provide, along with the Gospel of Thomas, the earliest view of Jesus’ followers.
Some scholars distinguish between Q1 (ca. 50), consisting of short sayings of Jesus, and Q2 (50-60), which may have been against the original Jesus group as evidenced by the judgmental tone of Q2. This includes apocalyptic pronouncements of doom on those who refused their kingdom program. After the Jewish War (70), they upgraded their mythology (Q3) to include statements about Jesus being divine (Mack, 53). On this breakdown, Q1 presents Jesus as a sage, a wise teacher; Q2 portrays him as prophetic and apocalyptic; and Q3 as superhuman, embodying the wisdom of God and divine authority (Boyd, 121).
History of the Q Hypothesis
Judging from its widespread acceptance today, one would expect that the Q hypothesis had been around since the early church. The truth is that Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), the father of modem liberalism, gave impetus to the idea when he reinterpreted a statement by Papias (ca. 110) about Matthew compiling “the oracles” of Jesus (Gk. ta logia). This, Schleiermacher decided, was a document consisting only of Jesus’ “sayings,” rather than both “what the Lord said or did” (see Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem? 20). Later, Christian Hermann Weisse (1801-1866) claimed that this saying-source was used by Luke in compiling his Gospel, thus giving rise to the concept of Q. Others added that Mark was used by both Matthew and Luke. Thus, Q is posited to account for the material used by Matthew and Luke that is not found in Mark, their common source.
However, in spite of its popularity, Q has been rejected by many biblical scholars from the time it was first proposed. B. F. Westcott (1825-1901), Theodore Zahn (1838-1933), and Adolf Schlatter (1852-1938) are examples of older scholars. Eta Linnemann, John Wenham, and William Farmer are examples of contemporary scholars.
Alleged Basis of Q
According to proponents, “the Q hypothesis, together with Marcan priority, is the most efficient way of accounting for the myriad details in the relationship of these three texts to one another.” For “Matthew and Luke agree in their sequence of events in the life of Jesus only when they also agree with Mark.” And “this peculiar pattern has led almost all scholars of the New Testament to the conclusion that Matthew and Luke must have made use of Mark as a kind of outline for their respective works, but quite independently of one another.” This Marcan priority, however, doesn’t account for a good deal of material shared by Matthew and Luke. “How could Matthew and Luke have included these several sayings, parables, and occasional stories—sometimes offering versions that are very close in wording—independently of one another?” In view of this, “the Q hypothesis arose as a way of accounting for the material common to Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark” (Patterson, 39-40). This similarity in content and order of events is used to show literary dependence of the latter documents on the former, is, of Matthew and Luke upon Mark and Q.
Evaluation
From an apologetic vantage point, the so-called “Gospel of Q” has serious implications for the authenticity of the Gospels and the historic apologetic for Christianity. But the evidence shows that the hypothesis in no way undermines the authenticity of the biblical Gospels. A central consideration is that there is not one shred of documentary evidence that Q ever existed. No manuscript or any version of it has ever been found. No church Father ever cited any work corresponding to what current scholars mean by Q. From what is known of the documentary tradition of the early Christian centuries, this lacuna is improbable in the extreme if the work ever existed. Former Q proponent Linnemann observes the reverence with which critics regard Q: “This is the stuff of fairy tales” (Linnemann, “Is There a Q?” 19). Apologists can assume with confidence that Q is a modern creation and that no manuscript will turn up next week to prove them wrong.
As Gregory Boyd observes, “we could account for such similarities in other ways that don’t require relying on a hypothetical document.” For example, “from what we know about Jewish oral tradition and memorization, we could convincingly argue that the commonalities between Luke and Matthew simply indicate the reliability of the oral traditions that lie behind both. A number of reputable scholars take this position. Others argue that Luke used Matthew as a source document. Luke 1:1-4 indicates that he used several sources. This would account for similarity” (Boyd, 119-20).
The argument for Q is circular reasoning. Mack, for example, argued that “frequently the way sayings are grouped together or ordered [in Q] makes a point. Sometimes a saying offers a specific interpretation of a preceding unit of material” (Mack, 106). And “the order and organization of material are. . . clear signs of the coherence of a particular layer of tradition” (ibid., 108). However, the only Q we possess was constructed by Q proponents from Matthew and Luke. They decided how these sayings would be put together. So it is no surprise that they were ordered to make a point, since it is those who constructed Q who ordered them in this way (ibid., 125). They are begging the question.
The Q hypothesis is based on a reconstructionist view of history that rejects New Testament history in Acts. If the Q hypothesis is correct as interpreted by some modern scholars, the book of Acts must be altogether false. Yet no book in the New Testament has more authentication of its historical accuracy than Acts. Historians specializing in the Roman Empire, such as A. N. Sherwin-White and Colin Hemer, have provided overwhelming evidence of its authenticity. Sherwin-White wrote: “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is over-whelming.... Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted” (Sherwin-White, 189). Before them there was the work of William Ramsay who, after decades of research, concluded that in the presentation of hundreds of historical details, Dr. Luke has not made a single mistake (see Ramsay). But if Acts is good history, the historical reconstruction of Q is mythology.
An important event in early Christianity was the Council of Jerusalem in 49, at which the teaching of Paul was the central focus of the controversy. As Linnemann notes, “Are we to believe that this Council was content to quibble over the interpretation of Jewish law, as Luke reports, when Paul was ‘mythologizing’ the gospel, claiming Jesus to be God’s son, while the Q people believed him to be no more than a Sage?” (Linnemann, “Is There a Q?” 20). Surely, if the people of Q were Jesus people, not Christians, there would be some trace of this conflict in the New Testament. There is not (ibid.).
Neither order of events nor similarity of content is convincing grounds for positing literary dependence. The only way to show literary dependence is to prove a high percentage of identical literary construction. But this is not the case, as Linnemann has demonstrated (ibid., 21-23). “Similarity in content is in itself no proof of literary dependence. It could also be caused by different people covering the same event. A saying of Jesus should not have differed much as reported independently by two or more people who heard it. Similarity might be historically, not literarily, transmitted” (ibid., 22). Nor can the existence of a source document be demonstrated by sequence of accounts. Only twenty-four pairs of parallels, 36.9 percent, occur within one chapter of each other. Only five (7.69 percent) occur in the same point of narrative in Matthew and Luke. In view of this, Linnemann argues, “It takes a robust imagination to suppose literary dependence (ibid.).
Literary dependence assumes identical wording. But the number of identical words in parallel verses is 1792 or 41 percent of Matthew’s Q portion and 42 percent of Luke’s. In seventeen of the sixty-five parallel pairs alleged to have come from Q, one-quarter of Q, the number of identical words is less than 25 percent. In the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-30), the longest Q passage, only sixty of 291 words are identical with Luke 19:11-27. Of these words, nine are the word and, seven are articles, and six are pronouns. That leaves thirty-eight of 291 words on which to establish dependence. Most of those occur in direct speech. “Thus the similarity is easily accounted for by a historically reliable memory that reached both Matthew and Luke” (ibid.). The longest passage in the high-agreement area has 78 percent identical words. That is no longer than Psalm 1, a text many know by heart. Says Linnemann, “It is not difficult to imagine accounts of this length being committed to memory in the oral culture of Jesus’ day” (ibid.).
There is no reason to accept the assumption that nearly all of Q is contained in Matthew and Luke. The primary argument is that, since Matthew and Luke retain a large amount of Mark in their Gospels, they would do the same for Q. But this does not follow, since Matthew and Luke may both have valued Mark more highly.
It is also assumed that there were several versions of Q. Besides the subjective criteria on which this was decided, it may be a violation of “Ockham’s Razor,” that hypotheses should not be multiplied without necessity. There is a more simple explanation if one predicates that the Gospels were assembled by eyewitnesses and contemporaries who had access to the original sayings and deeds of Jesus.
Overlap in the Gospels can be accounted for on the premise that either (1) the writers were independent eyewitnesses whose accounts would naturally overlap; (2) the later Gospel writers used the first Gospel written, plus their independent sources, and/or a common pool of oral sayings of Jesus; or (3) an early edition of Matthew or Mark was used later by the author as well as the other Gospel writers. The sources Luke mentions (Luke 1:1-4) may be other canonical Gospels composed by eyewitnesses.
If a pre-canonical Gospel record of Jesus existed, there is no good reason to believe it omitted the miracle or deity claims. Indeed, since the Old Testament claimed deity for the Messiah (esp. Pss. 45:6; 110:1; Isa. 7:14; 9:6; Micah 5:2; Zech. 12:10), there is no reason why someone claiming to be the Jewish Messiah would not do so as well.
Even if there had been some miracleless deposit of original sayings of Jesus prior to the Gospels, this would not prove Jesus did not do miracles nor say many other things. It may have been an early disciple accustomed to keeping records, such as Matthew the former tax collector, recorded the sayings of Jesus because he knew they would be needed later. For example, if we had only Galatians (and not Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Thessalonians), we might assume that Paul was not concerned about the resurrection. Galatians only mentions it once. Possessing an early document of sayings does not allow us to conclude that Christ did not perform miracles unless the document explicitly says so. Or, it might have been that, in view of the tremendous impact the world’s greatest Teacher made on their minds and hearts for three years, there was an oral deposit of Jesus’ words in the memories of the disciples before there were any written records. Indeed, according to John, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would bring to mind the things he had taught them (John 14:26; 16:13).
And if we take the presupposition so far as to imagine that an anti-miracle version of Q existed, it could have been an early revision of Jesus’ words and deeds in opposition to the original disciples. After all, serious doctrinal deviations appeared even during the apostles’ time (cf. Colossians 2; 1 Timothy 4; 1 John 4). Jesus warned of false prophets (Matt. 7:15).
When segments of text attributed to Q are examined as a whole, there is evidence of Jesus’ miracles and divinity. Jesus claimed his “father” gave him authority over the whole world (Qs24). Jesus considered himself greater than Solomon or the prophet Jonah (Qs32). He believed those who disowned him would be disowned by God (Qs37). Jesus would determine who would be excluded from God’s kingdom (Qs47). He predicted the future (Qs49). Jesus demanded that his disciples put him over all human beings, even their parents (Qs52). His followers would sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Qs62). Jesus even referred to his resurrection via the “sign” (miracle) of Jonah (Qs32). No doubt this evidence is one reason critics attempt to stratify Q into multiple documents, pushing the statements to as late a period as possible. However, the grounds for doing so are highly subjective, and, even so, the statements are still early enough to be authentic—during the time eyewitnesses were still alive.
In contrast to the hypothetical Q, the earliest known actual manuscript and documents of the Christian faith contained references to Christ’s miracles and divinity. John is filled with both and the John Rylands Fragment is the earliest undisputed manuscript of Christian origins. First Corinthians is accepted even by critics as coming from the pen of Paul in 55 or 56, only twenty-two or twenty-three years after Jesus’ death. It refers to the resurrection as having been “received” from Paul in his earlier teachings (1 Cor. 15:1, 4-8).
The Q Assumptions
Obviously, though most Q advocates would be reluctant to admit it, there is an anti-supernatural bias behind their view. Following the naturalistic approach to the Gospels that began with David Strauss in 1835-1836, they assume the miraculous does not occur. Thus, all records of miraculous events are categorized as later results of mythmaking. The haste at which they jump to this conclusion when, even granting an early “sayings” source, betrays a desire to eliminate the supernatural. The confidence with which critics come to an anti-supernatural conclusion on such speculative and hypothetical grounds supports the thesis that they really begin with a naturalistic presupposition. Compare the words of one Q advocate: “The narrative canonical gospels can no longer be viewed as the trustworthy accounts of unique and stupendous historical events at the foundation of the Christian faith.” Instead, “the gospels must now be seen as the result of early Christian mythmaking” (Patterson, “The Lost Gospel,” 40).
Beginning with a disbelief in miracles, it comes as no surprise that their imaginary reconstruction of Q in the early time period is devoid of miracle stories, including the resurrection.
The Q hypothesis is based on an incredible number of assumptions (see Boyd, 122-24):
- Mark was the earliest Gospel and Matthew and Luke followed its form and content. The same data can be explained by positing an oral tradition or putting Matthew first.
- Q existed as a written document. There is no proof for this.
- A Q can be reconstructed from what Matthew and Luke have in common that is not found in Mark. But if Q existed there is no objective way to know how much of it was used.
- Q was composed to express everything early Christians believed about Jesus. Why could it not have been simply a collection of sayings?
- It is also assumed that a community of people created Q. There is no proof of this. One person could just as easily have collected Jesus’ sayings.
- Q can be accurately understood by discerning its various literary stages. No objective criteria are offered by which this can be done.
- These alleged states reflect various stages of the thinking of Jesus’ followers. The various views could as easily have been concurrent.
- The views of Christ are incompatible with one another. Jesus could have been teacher, prophet, and divine authority. If these elements are together at the end, why could they not have all been there at the beginning?
Boyd summarizes: “We see, then, that the liberal revision of the picture of Jesus and of early church history on the basis of Q amounts to nothing more than a pile of arbitrary assumptions built on other arbitrary assumptions” (Boyd, 24).
Conclusion
The argument for the Q hypothesis, particularly in its naturalistic form, are without historical, documentary, or literary foundations. As Boyd noted, “among other things, the entire scheme is completely conjectural. These scholars ask us to trade the reliable Gospel portrait of Christ for a hypothetical reconstruction of history based on a hypothetical reconstruction of a hypothetical document” (Boyd, 121-22). There is nothing in the canonical Gospels that cannot be accounted for by positing that the authors were eyewitnesses and/or contemporaries of the events and that they provided an accurate account of what they reported just as Luke claims (Luke 1:1-4).
In the words of one former Q disciple, “The Gospels report the words and deeds of Jesus. They do this partly through direct eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) and partly through those who were informed by eyewitnesses (Mark and Luke). The similarities as well as the differences in the Gospel accounts are just what one expects from eyewitness reminiscence” (ibid.).
Sources
Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics
G. Boyd, Jesus Under Siege
W. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis
E. Linnemann, Is There a Q?
E. Linnemann, Is There a Synoptic Problem?
B. Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins
S. J. Patterson, Q - The Lost Gospel
S. J. Patterson, Yes, Virginia, There Is a Q
W Ramsay, St. Paul, Traveler and Roman Citizen
A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament
J. W. Wenham, Redating Matthew Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem
Gary: In service of my risen Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Maranatha!