Loading...Why should we think there was a Q, the hypothetical document that contained principally sayings of Jesus, that was (according to this hypothesis) used by Matthew and Luke (but not by Mark) in constructing their Gospels?
It is an issue because if Matthew and Luke both used Mark, as almost everyone agrees (for reasons I laid out in my earlier post), then one has to explain why they have so many other materials (mainly sayings) in common that are *not* found in Mark. They didn’t get them from Mark! Where then?
In my earlier post I claimed that Matthew does not seem to have gotten those sayings from Luke or Luke from Matthew, and so they both most have gotten them from some other one-time-existing source. That is a source commonly called Q (for the German word Quelle: Source).
But some readers have asked exactly why it is unlikely that Matthew got these sayings from Luke or Luke from Matthew? In particular, isn’t the best theory the one that has the least hypotheticals? Why invent a hypothetical source for the saying common to Matthew and Luke when you could just say that one of them copied the sayings from the other? We’re talkin’ Ockham’s Razor: the simplest solution wins!
I will agree there is a case to be made for the “non-existence of Q” and the scholar who has made it best and most emphatically is Mark Goodacre, whose students are like the 70 disciples Jesus sent out through the Promised Land to spread the good news. (!)
Mark and I disagree on the point, but he makes the strongest case on the planet, in my view. (If you want to see him discuss the Synoptics at length – as a group and individually, including his views of Q etc. – check out his 15-lecture course! The Mysteries of the Synoptic Gospels: Discovering Matthew, Mark, and Luke – Bart Ehrman Courses Online)
My sense is that a lot of readers who hear there was a Q and then hear there probably wasn’t think: hey, why bother with it? It’s hypothetical. Just get rid of it and things are easier!
It would indeed be easier to get rid of Q if getting rid of it did not create more problems than it solves. But alas…
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Hello, Bart and thanks for the best explanation I’ve read so far on why there’s a need for Q. Still, it strikes me that throughout the pro-Q argument, there is an unstated belief that scholars know enough about Luke-the-person to predict how he would/should use Matthew if he had access to the work. And knowing him the way they do, he would never have redacted Matthew the way we find in Luke. But how can we know what kind of writer/person Luke was? What if all the unusual placements and edits scholars find troubling in Luke actually made perfect sense to him? Also, what certainty do we have as to the versions of Mark and Matthew floating around when Luke would have used them? For example, what if Luke had access to Matthew’s Hebrew sayings gospel referenced by Papias? I know such a gospel has never been found, but it least it has the benefit of having been mentioned by one Apostolic Father, which is more than we can say for Q. Anyway, it just seems that the certainty so many scholars have for the Q source is premature. Thanks for your time and looking forward to your thoughts.
All we know about Luke as a writer is what we have. When he copies Mark, he normally keeps Mark’s sequence; when he copies Q, he normally changes them. That’s not consistent. I’m not sure how positint Papias’s Hebrew collection of sayings helps matters much, since the only evidence of Q is the Greek sayings he shares with Matthew.
Dr Ehrman,
I have been waiting for this post for a while because I read Dr Goodacre’s two books after I heard you mentioning him in your books, blog, and podcast, and found him pretty convincing 🙂
I have two questions, I hope these are not too long:
– on your sentence “what’s wrong with their original sequence?” Well, without Q the question would be “Luke apparently knew of Mark and Matthew, and as a skilled writer he decided to do his own rewriting of the Gospel by copy-pasting Mark just like Matthew did, adding more special-Luke material and edits, and including additional sayings of Jesus that he found in Matthew. Why would he do that?”
That’s getting into personal aspects that we don’t know but maybe he really didn’t like Matthew and his edits and thought he could do much better, and the extra Jesus’ sayings in Matthew helped make his point wherever he needed them?
– on the dating of the Gospels: if Matthew and Luke are actually independent from one another, why is Luke ALWAYS placed 5 or 10 years AFTER Matthew and not the other way round? It sounds strange but still, why not date Luke to 75-80 and Matthew to 90-100?
Your first point: what I’m arguing is that it’s hard to figure out how he would know whether a particular saying he sees in Matthew could be found somewhere in mark, without rereading it each time.
Yes, you could argue that Matthew used Luke, but that’s a whole other kettle of fish.
Let’s say Q is real. Based on material you believe that Matthew and Luke copied from Q can you guess when Q was written.
Not really sure. All we could say is “before Matthew.” It’s often dated to the 50s, but that seems hard to show ne way or the other to me.
One thing that seems to me difficult to explain on the Q theory is that Matthew and Luke often seamlessly integrate the double tradition and triple tradition material in the same ways—in other words they join the same Markan material with the same non-Markan material. If this happened once, we might chalk it up to coincidence, but we see it in The Beelzebul controversy, On Temptations, Parables of Mustard seed and Yeast, Parable of the Wicked Tenants, and Greatness in the kingdom of God. That’s a lot of work for coincidence to be doing. But the mystery dissolves if Luke used both Mark and Matthew. How does the Q theory explain this?
The do sometimes, but often because it’s in relation to a passage already found in mark. E.g., Mark has a temptation narrative, Q has temptation sayings, so it would be weird to put the sayings somewhere other than in the narrative. Also, there surely would have been times when both Mt/Lk used the Q sayings in the sequence they were in Q rather than putting them elswhere.
Too bad we can’t check whether Matthew and Luke used Q material in the sequence in which it occurred. It’s profoundly convenient for Q-theorists that we don’t have a copy of Q and can simply attribute to it whatever features we need to make the theory work.
They couldn’t both have since thy have different sequences. That’s more or less the point. If they were in the same sequence that would argue that one of them got the sayings from the other.
My point was that the Farrer theory does a better job of explaining why Matthew and Luke join the same Markan material with the same double-tradition material (i.e. Luke copied both Mark and Matthew). You suggested that some of those pairings might be explained by both Matthew and Luke using the sayings in the same sequence they occurred in Q. If we had a copy of Q and could check what order the sayings occurred in, this might be a neat solution, but since we don’t have Q, it’s just an ad hoc hypothesis designed to save the 4-source theory from refutation—we don’t know whether it’s actually true, but the theory would seem to depend on its truth (in the absence of some alternative explanation).
Essentially, this is the “unpicking” argument for Q. Why would Luke pick sporadic teachings of Jesus across the Gospel of Matthew, and then use them, but in a different order and in different contexts.
I think this argument assumes that Luke would’ve used Matthew the same way Luke used Mark. But is that the case? Maybe Luke thinks Matthew has steered the picture of Jesus too far to Jewishness, and Luke wants to steer the picture away from that and towards a picture of Jesus being more inclusive of outcasts, outsiders, and Gentiles. And so Luke doesn’t want to use Matthew in a way that would promote Matthew (and thus Jewishness), by repeating Matthew’s new stories and teachings about Jesus. Yet Luke likes parts of Matthew such as teachings of Jesus, the idea of Jesus born as son of God from a virgin, appearances of the risen Jesus on earth, etc. So with the teachings of Jesus, Luke takes his copy of Matthew and marks the parts to be used, but in different contexts and with slightly different words at times to avoid looking like Luke copied directly from Matthew.
Thoughts?
I’m definitley not saying that Luke had to use Matthew the way he used Mark. I’m saying I can’t imagine how he would know of, all the sayings in Matthew, which ones were not also in Mark, without memorizing one of them. There is no obviously evidence of anyone inthe first century memorizing Christian books. We’re not talkin’ medieval monks here who are memorizing the word of God! Is there any evidence of anyone memorizing Christian books before the end of the fourth century? (Didymus!)
Also, I don’t think there’s any way that Luke got his infancy narrative materials from Matthew The fact that both authors know things like Bethlehem, Virgin, Joseph, Mary is not evidence of literary dependence. These are “data” tha twould have been widely known. The infancy narratives are so different in almost every way that provide some of the best evidence that Luke did NOT know Matthew, imho. So too resurrection narratives. Completely different and even contradictory. That can’t be evidence of dependence. Think of how we would decide if one student’s paper was copyied from another’s: it would not be because they mention several of the same major issue on a topic that’s been assigned, if they did not have extensive, inexplicable, verbatim agreements.disabledupes{a2ccc0b4fc4cbbfbc203092e1a9d0111}disabledupes
I’m not sure that data about Jesus’ birth was widely known. Outside of the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke, it’s never mentioned in the rest of the NT or Apostolic Fathers (except the star in Ignatius, but he probably knew Matthew), until you get to writers like Justin or the Proto-Gospel of James, both of which would know Matthew.
Differences and contradictions don’t eliminate consideration for sources. Luke disagrees with himself about details of Paul’s Damascus Road experience, and the ascension. The Proto Gospel of James certainly knows Matthew and Luke, yet it introduces two new grandparents for Jesus (Anna and Joachin) unmentioned in either genealogy in Matthew or Luke. And PGJ claims baby Jesus was spared from Herod’s henchmen by being hidden in a phatnē with no mention of a flight to Egypt. So, I think, even though Matthew and Luke have differences in their infancy narratives, that doesn’t mean that Luke didn’t know or use Matthew. Luke recasts and rewords episodes of Mark (synagogue of Nazareth, call of 4 fishermen, woman anoints Jesus, question about the greatest commandment, etc), so we shouldn’t be surprised if Luke recast Matthew’s birth stories for his own purposes. Just my 2c. Thanks.
Yup, I get it.
And for me this is ^also^ the strongest argument for Markan priority. Consider if Mark came last – then Mark removed the passages whose order differed between Matthew and Luke… while also amplifying the shared passages? Seems like a weird mix of conservative and carefree editing.
And then consider if Mark came in the middle of the sequence. Then the last one (let’s say Luke) subtracted Mark from Matthew and then reinserted it in a different order. Why bother? Did Luke think he had a read on the “real order”? Again, not super plausible.
“Sometimes Mark and Luke have the same sequence of stories not found in Mark because…” I think you mean Matthew and Luke instead of Mark and Luke?
There was no narrative for the sayings Matthew and Luke used, unlike the narrative told in Mark. They had to create the narrative on their own. Yes, that makes sense. There must have been a Q source.
I saw a Venn diagram made for an argument against Q several years ago—can’t remember the name of the scholar who created it—on the surface it made so much sense. What I now realize is that the diagram failed to show that the overlap between Matthew and Luke are sayings and not from a story or gospel they read.
Yup!
Thanks. Makes sense. I’ve wondered about that, a lot.
You are a young adult in the mid to late 80s CE. You were not alive during Jesus’ lifetime nor the lifetimes of Paul or the Twelve! Yet, you grew up hearing the stories of Jesus from the Gospel of Mark (written c. 65). You heard these stories in church services every Sunday and at home, your whole life. All Christians of your time know Mark’s stories by heart! However, a new book has recently appeared. This new book has most of the same stories as “Mark” but it has some new stories as well, some of them absolutely fantastical (i.e., The Dead Saints Shaken Out of Their Tombs Story)! No one has ever heard these amazing new stories! “Matthew” is a best seller! So, if *you* are going to “publish” your own book, would you copy Mark and this new book (Matthew) exactly as this new author (“Matthew”) has written it or would you mix this new author’s material in, in different locations of the original Jesus Story (Mark), to make it look like your story is something new, not just a rehash of “Matthew”? Who will want your book if it is IDENTICAL to “Matthew”???
As a non-specialist the question as to whether or not “Q” existed as a separate document doesn’t seem nearly as interesting to me as the provenance of the material.
Did we have a Jesus community only interested in Jesus’ pre-Easter teachings?
Does any of it actually go back to Jesus?
How come Mark didn’t know about it?
Yes, these questions are the ones I”m nore interested in as well.n disabledupes{ff7138365d78d8f6fe86bc867e4c9e5b}disabledupes
Yes, these q
You and Goodacre are both right. Here is how:
Following the composition of the Gospel of Mark, a disciple of Jesus (let’s assume Peter) shared various sayings of Jesus, in the form of chreiai (attributed maxims), with his secretary, Mark. These chreiai (Q) were later incorporated into the Gospel of Mark, eventually becoming part of the Gospel of Matthew.
Luke, having access to both Peter’s collection of chreiai and a copy of the Gospel of Matthew, chose to integrate the chreiai into the Gospel of Mark in a more systematic and thematic approach. This resulted in the Gospel of Luke.
This scenario explains why Luke’s incorporation of the chreiai appears seamless, without the need to extract them from the Gospel of Matthew. It also accounts for the double tradition shared between the Gospels of Luke and Matthew.
What do you think?
I think you’re saying we’re both *wrong* 🙂
Ha! I like to focus on the positives 😆
I agree with you that Luke likely drew from a hypothetical Q document, alongside the Gospel of Mark, when composing the Gospel of Luke. Additionally, I concur with Goodacre’s assessment that Luke was familiar with the Gospel of Matthew and, to some extent, crafted his own gospel in response to Matthew’s narrative.
It’s my understanding that Luke viewed the Gospel of Mark as a foundational source and was also aware of a collection of sayings that Matthew’s author would later incorporate into his work. However, after reviewing Matthew’s completed gospel, Luke was dissatisfied and decided to craft his own narrative of Jesus’ life and ministry. Drawing primarily from Mark and the sayings collection, Luke also consulted Matthew’s work, using it as a reference point to guide his approach and intentionally diverge from certain aspects of Matthew’s account.
Do you think that’s plausible?
If you think Luke had access to Q there is no evidence left that he used Matthew; and if he used Matthew there is no evidence that there was a Q. It’s possible to say he knew both, but it’s also possible to say both knew four or five other sources. But once you start multiplying sources not needed by the evidence, I’d say it become increasingly implausible.
The concern that introducing both Q and Matthew as sources for Luke is unparsimonious is understandable. However, a closer look at the evidence suggests that this is the most straightforward explanation.
Luke’s preface explicitly states that he consulted multiple accounts and eyewitnesses before writing his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4). This awareness of multiple sources and his desire to provide an orderly account (Luke 1:3) suggest that Luke was intentional about drawing from various traditions.
The double tradition material shared by Matthew and Luke clearly points to the existence of Q. This material cannot be explained by Luke’s use of Mark or Matthew alone. Furthermore, the fact that Matthew and Luke differ in the order of the Q sayings supports the idea that Luke used Q independently of Matthew. If Luke had only used Matthew, it’s unlikely that he would have rearranged the Q material so significantly.
On the other hand, the agreements between Luke and Matthew against Mark demonstrate that Luke also used Matthew as a source. Rather than introducing unnecessary complexity, recognizing Luke’s use of both Q and Matthew provides a coherent explanation for the unique characteristics of his Gospel.
kirbinator5000, your reconstruction sounds similar to my own, which is that Matthew wrote Mk, and Mark (Peter’s interpreter) compiled Mt. I have argued that Luke knew what Papias’s elder knew: that Mark compiled Mt out of order. So Luke reordered it.
Matthew’s limited appearances in the New Testament might lead one to question his role as author. In contrast, Peter’s prominent role from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry would have made his testimony highly sought after. His eyewitness perspective would have carried considerable weight, and it’s likely that he provided the foundational chronology for the Gospel of Mark. Mary Magdalene’s involvement in the events surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection, including her discovery of the empty tomb, would have also made her a valuable contributor. Her influence can be seen in the narrative, particularly in the sections where she is portrayed favorably and the disciples, including Peter, are depicted in less flattering light. I think she played a role in the final editing process of Mark, and may even be responsible for its abrupt ending by removing post mortem appearances to Peter.
The Gospel of Matthew is believed to have been written by someone closely associated with Peter. This author may have sought to balance the negative portrayal of Peter in gMark by adding nuance/context. With access to Peter’s collection of Jesus’ sayings, the author of Matthew’s Gospel incorporated these teachings into the narrative, providing a richer understanding of Jesus’ message.
I don’t know anything about Matthew’s Gospel that would make you think the author was closely associated with Peter. Peter shows up a good bit, but that doesn’t make the author an associate. He certainly never mentions Peter as a compamion or a source of informatoin.
The more positive portrayal of Peter in Matthew compared to Mark may suggest that the author had a connection to Peter. Several factors support this idea:
1. Matthew’s Unique Emphasis on Peter’s Leadership
Unlike Mark, Matthew explicitly highlights Peter’s authority and foundational role in the church. Matthew 16:13–19 includes Jesus’ blessing of Peter, calling him the “rock” on which He will build His church and giving him the “keys of the kingdom.” This passage, absent from Mark, suggests an effort to elevate Peter’s status, which would be expected if Matthew had ties to Peter’s circle.
2. Mitigation of Peter’s Failures
While Matthew does not omit Peter’s mistakes, it often softens them. For instance, when Jesus rebukes Peter for rejecting His suffering (Matthew 16:21–23), Matthew retains the correction but avoids the harsher tone of Mark 8:31–33, where Jesus calls Peter “Satan.”
3. Peter’s Unique Presence in Matthew’s Narrative
Matthew includes episodes that highlight Peter’s faith and leadership, such as Peter walking on water (Matthew 14:28–31), which is absent in Mark. The inclusion of this event, despite Peter’s momentary doubt, still reinforces his willingness to act in faith.
4. The Post-Resurrection Commission
Unlike Mark, which ends abruptly, Matthew 28:16–20 records Jesus commissioning the disciples, implicitly affirming Peter’s role.
I’d say a lot of Christians down till today have a more positive view of Peter than presented in mark, but I don’t think that shows they had any personal connection with him.
Raises the question whether any material in Matthew or Luke was original, versus all taken from other sources? I know you are not advocating this but, if there was a Q, there could have been other sources. If so, Matthew and Luke are merely copied stories arranged sometimes similarly, sometimes differently.
Luke wrote for the Aegean churches, as I have argued in print. He also shares knowledge with nearby Papias (Philip’s daughters, Justus Barsabbas). So it would not be surprising if he knew the elder, or at least knew that Mark, Peter’s interpreter, compiled his gospel in the wrong order. So, Luke’s re-ordering of Mt’s material is perfectly logical if Mt was the gospel compiled by Mark. Luke uses Mk and Mt differently because he knew what the elder knew, that Mk was written by Matthew, an eyewitness, and that Mt was compiled out of order. Thus, the major drawback of the Farrer theory is removed, isn’ it?
Sure, if you solve the problem it’s solved. But I don’t agree with your views abut Luke.
You and Christians ASSUME there were multiple birth narratives circulating before Matthew and Luke. You have zero evidence for this assumption. Occam’s Razor tells us that Matthew invented the first birth narrative out of thin air, just as he invented the guards at the tomb and the dead saints shaken alive by a quake. He was a master story teller. Luke saw the success of Matthew’s embellishments to the original Jesus Story (Mark’s gospel) and said to himself, “I can do better! I can even tell a better birth narrative!”
Matthew may have had the magi but Luke had the stable and the angels. Luke stole the show. It is Luke’s story we celebrate at Christmas, not Matthew’s. These guys were just trying to tell a good story. They weren’t writing history textbooks!
Yes, I assume that prior to 85 CE or so there were people telling stories of Jesus’ birth. I’m not sure why that would seem implausible?
Taking a different tack on the same issue:
Did the writer of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas invent his stories out of whole cloth, write down circulating oral stories, or maybe both (transmitted oral stories exactly, embellished existing oral stories, and included new stories)?
I once listened to an Orthodox Christian apologist rant with intensity that The Protogospel of James was absolutely not the source of the Church’s traditions regarding Mary being sired by Joachim and Anna, raised in the temple, etc. Absolutely not! Protogospel drew its clearly distorted and heretical text from the same Holy Oral Tradition that was the source of Orthodox Mary doctrines! Frankly, it sounded to me like a big fuss over nothing, but at least it was entertaining to listen to.
He clearly didn’t invent all of his stories out of whole cloth, since he depends on Luke 2 for his final one. I would assume he had heard storeies about Anna and Joachim, but possibly he came up with them himself. IN any event, it does not have teh “holy Mary” stories this apologist was not doubt ranting against in an anti-Roman Catholic tyrade; the Proto-Gospel does not portray Mary as the access to the son, as one to whom one should pray and reverence, who was immaculately conceived and then assumed, etc. etc. It is, however, our first record of thoughts about Mary developing in a reverential way, and we have no record of Anna and Joachim prior to this.
I question the early church’s uniform admiration for Peter. Paul’s accounts in Galatians reveal conflicts with Peter, while the Corinthian church was divided in their loyalty between Peter and others. Additionally, the Gospels of Mark and John portray Peter unfavorably. You’ve argued that changes between the early and later synoptic gospels reflect the early church’s concerns.
Wouldn’t it logically follow that Matthew’s positive depiction of Peter, particularly where Mark’s account is negative, suggests Matthew’s gospel was written by early Christians with ties to Peter? You’ve argued Mark’s negative portrayal indicates no connection to Peter, but shouldn’t the opposite be true for Matthew’s revision?
I certainly don’t think there was universal admiration for Peter. But I don’t think an author who admires him is necessarily someone who knew him, any more than someone who admires Jesus necessarily knew Jesus. (Or someone who admires Malcom X knew him; etc.)
When introducing Peter, Mark says “Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon” (Mark 1:16), instead of the more straightforward “Simon and his brother Andrew.” This unusual wording is mirrored when introducing Mary Magdalene: “Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James the Less” (Mark 15:40). This parallel is striking, especially given Mark’s theme of “the first shall be last and the last, first.” It’s as if Mark is subtly suggesting that Magdalene is eclipsing Peter.
John’s Gospel seems to be aware of this dynamic reversing the order (introducing Andrew before Peter and Mary the mother before Magdalene).
Matthew’s Gospel offers an interesting perspective on this theme. The parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16) submits to the idea that those who come last can receive the same reward as the first while highlighting the injustice of it. Immediately before this parable, Peter is praised for leaving everything behind and is promised a seat on one of the 12 thrones, unlike in Mark 10 where Peter is simply told that no one has left anything behind for Jesus’ sake without receiving a reward. This difference suggests Matthew’s Gospel is pushing back against Mark’s demotion of Peter in favor of Magdalene.
I’m suggesting that the author of Matthew’s affinity for Peter is more than just a personal preference. In the aftermath of a central figure’s passing, movements often experience factional divisions among the first generation of followers. Christianity is no exception, as evident in the Gospels, Paul’s letters, and early Christian writings like 1 Clement.
Observing the Gospel of Mark’s portrayal of Magdalene and the other disciples, Matthew’s apparent rebuttal in favor of Peter, and John’s emphasis on the Bethany household (Mary, Martha, and Lazarus), I believe it’s reasonable to infer that adherents of these factions played a role in shaping these Gospels.
Luke/Acts appears to attempt at least a semblance of harmonization of these divergent perspectives, striving to present a unified narrative.