Answer:
The theory of a "Q" gospel is based on the concept that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are so similar, that they must have been copied from each other and/or from another source. It is this other hypothetical source that has been given the name Q. The title "Q" comes from the German word “quelle” which means “source.”

The concept is essentially this:

1. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written after 70 A.D. and so could not have been written by the Apostle Matthew, John Mark, or Luke.
2. So because of the later date of writting, the authors of the Gospels could not have been first-hand witnesses, therefore they must have used other sources.
3. Because Marks Gospel is the shortest and has the least amount of original material, Mark was written first and Matthew and Luke used Mark to compile the Gospels that carry their names.
4. Since there are many similarities in Matthews and Lukes accounts which do not occur in Mark, then Matthew and Luke must have had another source.
5. This source, Q, was likely a collection of sayings of Jesus, similar to the gospel to Thomas.

So then "Q" is nothing more than a Theoretical (supposed, assumed, hypothetical, conjectural) gospel, of which no parts exist, and of which there are no direct historical sources.

This theory is not something that is new or revolutionary, but was first postulated over 150 years ago, however it was not then taken very seriously, yet with the discovery of "Thomas's Sayings of Jesus" in 1945, and the remarkable similarities between this document and the gospels the question of "Q" was revitalised and once more became a popular theory amongst theologians.

But, let us be absolutely clear on this point, the Book does not exist in history, it remains conjecture, a theory.

Q has been postulated (supposed, assumed, asserted, conjectured) because Christian theologians (people who speculate and believe on uncertain or tentative grounds) believe they have been and are able to reconstruct the development of the gospels far better if they can assume (take to be so or true without verification or proof) that there was a written source that the authors of the three synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) used in their efforts of writing.

Now then, it is fairly obvious to even a casual reader of the gospel narratives, that there are many common "threads" through the narratives. And on closer study it does appear that perhaps in the writting of these treastes one author may have used the previous authors works to fill in gaps that they were unsure of or even relate events that they had not been told of.

This hypothesis would most certainly be true of Luke the physician and historian, as by his own words; Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed." Luke 1: 1-4 (ASV)

Thus if as is generally accepted Lukes gospel was written after those which bear the names of Matthew and Mark, we would reasonably expect to find similarites between the writting of Luke and the previous two. Which we do, thus giving credence to Luke and more importantly validating his own claim to have researched what he has written.

So on the basis of this theory we can reasonably say that the gospel of Luke is the latest written but perhaps also the most accurate portrait of the life, works and suffering of Christ presently available to us. Which then leaves us with those of Matthew and Mark. Again we find similarites between these, and instances where the wording leads one to the idea of "plagarism", but who copied from who? Did Matthew then copy from Mark or is it the other way round.

We actually have no way of deciding this for certain, unless archaeology uncovers further evidence in history or further finds of ancient manuscripts. So all that we might assume from this point on is exactly that assumption, theory and conjecture. And that is what "Q" is all about, the hypothesis of there being a further as yet unknown gospel from which both Matthew Mark and perhaps even Luke have obtained some of their content.

Page Top