And Then There Was Q, November 29, 2017 by Bart Ehrman
- Q can only be argued for if one accepts Markan Priority.
- all but two of the shared passages not in Mark involve sayings of Jesus
- there are at least two narratives involved:
- the full story of Jesus’ three temptations in the wilderness (Matt 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13; Mark has only a brief mention of the Temptation, Mark 1:12-13) and
- the story of the healing of the centurion’s servant (Matt 8:5-10; Luke 7:1-10).
- Q must have been in Greek, given the verbatim agreements, in Greek, between Matthew and Luke in Q material.
- The stories that Matthew and Luke include that are not in Mark are almost always inserted in different locations among the stories each copied from Mark; although both copied Mark’s sequence. Many scholars believe Matthew and Luke were written independently of each other, based on differences in order and detail in the non-Q material. Since they could not have copied from each other directly, this implies the existence of another source.
From OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT [Large language model]. https://chatgpt.com. 10/30/2024.
Prompt – What are the pros and cons of the alleged Gospel of Q citing the scholars that support each position and the reasons why?
The “Gospel of Q” (from “Quelle,” the German word for “source”) is a hypothetical source believed by some scholars to have informed both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which contain material absent from the Gospel of Mark. The idea behind Q is that Matthew and Luke used two primary sources: the Gospel of Mark and another shared document (Q) that consisted mainly of sayings and teachings attributed to Jesus. Here’s an overview of the main arguments for and against the existence of Q, with scholars supporting each side.
Arguments for the Existence of Q
1. Shared Material between Matthew and Luke
- Scholars: Burton Mack, John S. Kloppenborg, James M. Robinson.
- Argument: Q theory supporters point out that Matthew and Luke contain a significant amount of overlapping material not found in Mark, suggesting a common source. Scholars like Mack and Robinson argue that this shared material is too extensive and specific to be explained by oral tradition alone, advocating instead for a written document.
2. Order and Structure of Sayings
- Scholars: Kloppenborg, Robinson.
- Argument: Scholars who support Q argue that the order and structure of shared sayings between Matthew and Luke are sufficiently distinct from those in Mark. For example, they note that certain parables, beatitudes, and sayings about judgment appear in a similar sequence in Matthew and Luke but differ from Mark. This structural similarity suggests a common, organized source like Q, according to Kloppenborg.
3. Theological Independence of Q
- Scholars: Helmut Koester, Burton Mack.
- Argument: Some scholars argue that Q represents an early theological outlook focused on wisdom sayings rather than the death and resurrection narratives central to later Christian doctrine. Koester and Mack view Q as capturing an early, non-apocalyptic tradition that might reflect an original layer of Jesus’ teachings. This early wisdom focus contrasts with the later narrative-based accounts, supporting the idea of Q as a distinct source.
Kloppenborg’s Paper “On Dispensing with Q?: Goodacre on the Relation of Mark to Matthew”
Arguments Against the Existence of Q
1. The Farrer Hypothesis
- Scholars: Mark Goodacre, Michael Goulder.
- Argument: The Farrer Hypothesis posits that Luke used both Mark and Matthew, making a separate Q source unnecessary. Goodacre argues that Luke directly copied material from Matthew, explaining the overlap between the two gospels. This hypothesis eliminates the need for Q and challenges its theoretical foundation by suggesting direct literary dependence instead.
2. Lack of Manuscript Evidence
- Scholars: Eta Linnemann, Christopher Tuckett (critiquing the textual assumptions).
- Argument: No physical copies or fragments of Q have ever been found, which leads some scholars to question its existence. Scholars like Linnemann argue that without tangible evidence, positing a hypothetical source is speculative, suggesting instead that Matthew and Luke could have relied on each other or shared oral traditions rather than a lost document.
3. Overlapping Themes Explained by Oral Tradition
- Scholars: Richard Bauckham, Craig A. Evans.
- Argument: Some scholars argue that the common themes in Matthew and Luke can be attributed to an oral tradition, not a written document. Bauckham and Evans suggest that oral transmission of Jesus’ teachings would naturally lead to shared stories and sayings across multiple communities, which Matthew and Luke could have documented independently without needing a Q source.
The handout from Session 6 of Mark Goodacre’s SBA course about the Mysteries of the Snyoptics.
Also from ChatGPT
Here’s why many scholars believe in its existence:
- Double Tradition Material: There are about 230 verses shared between Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark. This includes teachings like the Beatitudes, the Lord’s Prayer, and various sayings of Jesus. The theory proposes that both Matthew and Luke drew on an independent, now-lost source (Q) to explain these similarities.
- Stylistic Consistency: The shared material between Matthew and Luke often has a similar linguistic style and theological tone, suggesting they might have drawn from a common written source rather than an oral tradition that might vary more widely in wording.
- Independence of Matthew and Luke: Many scholars believe Matthew and Luke were written independently of each other, based on differences in order and detail in the non-Q material. Since they could not have copied from each other directly, this implies the existence of another source.
- Absence in Mark: Scholars believe the material shared between Matthew and Luke but absent in Mark suggests another source, as Mark is widely considered to be the first gospel written. If Mark had been their only source, Matthew and Luke wouldn’t share such extensive common material that isn’t also in Mark.
Sources
For the last chat that lead to the page above, a prompt was submitted asking for the sources of that chat. Below is the response.
The relationship between Matthew, Luke, and the hypothetical “Q” source has been explored extensively in biblical scholarship. Here are some key resources on the topic:
- Bart D. Ehrman, “The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings” (Oxford University Press, 2012): Ehrman discusses the Synoptic Problem and the role of Q in detail, examining how Matthew and Luke likely used Q differently to emphasize their unique theological perspectives.
- Mark Goodacre, “The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem” (Trinity Press International, 2002): Although Goodacre challenges the necessity of Q, he provides a critical overview of the Synoptic Problem and highlights the distinct ways Matthew and Luke arrange shared material.
- John S. Kloppenborg, “Q, the Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus” (Westminster John Knox Press, 2008): Kloppenborg, a leading Q scholar, offers a comprehensive introduction to Q and its usage, explaining how Matthew and Luke likely adapted Q to support their theological themes.
- Donald Senior, “The Gospel of Matthew” in The New Interpreter’s Bible (Abingdon Press, 1995): Senior provides commentary on Matthew’s structure and the unique arrangement of Q material, focusing on Matthew’s emphasis on Jesus as teacher.
- Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Gospel According to Luke” (Anchor Yale Bible Commentary, 1981): Fitzmyer’s commentary on Luke examines the arrangement of Q material within Luke’s travel narrative and his thematic focus on social justice and inclusion.
These sources cover both the theoretical basis for Q and its implications for the structure and themes in Matthew and Luke. They are highly regarded in biblical scholarship and provide detailed insights into the differences in how these Gospels handle shared material.
