(7 votes, average: 4.86 out of 5)
Loading...One of the most frequent questions I get asked about (who woulda thought?) is whether the source called “Q” really existed and why I think so.
I’ll explain what that means in a second, but first: if you are interested in hearing two of the world’s experts talk about it (taking opposite sides!), do we ever have an event for you! It is not connected with the blog, but it would be a shame not to let blog members know about it in case they (you!) want to attend. Here’s a link for more information and registration: Did Q Exist?
So, for those who don’t know, “Q” is the hypothetical document allegedly used independently by both Matthew and Luke for a good many passages in their Gospels, mainly sayings of Jesus (the Lord’s Prayer, the Beatitudes, a number of parables, one-liners, etc.).
You like this post? It's free! However, you'll need to be a blog member to read most articles here. Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week. Membership starts at $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
The deal is this: it is almost universally agreed that both Matthew and Luke used Mark for many of their narratives (they have verbatim agreements all over the place, and there are solid reasons/arguments for thinking these are places where Mark was one of their sources). But there are a number of passages that are not found in Mark that ARE in both Matthew and Luke. So they didn’t get these passages from Mark. The main obvious options (since they too are often word-for-word- agreements) is that either Matthew got these from Luke, or Luke got them from Matthew, or they both got them independently from a source they both had. Scholars call the hypothetical source “Q” from the German word “Quelle” which means “source.”
So, which is it? For over a century the dominant and widely unquestioned view was that Q existed. Over the past 20 years or so that has come under question, largely because of the herculean efforts of Duke professor and sometime blog guest poster Mark Goodacre. He is relatively certain Luke copied Matthew.
I am equally relatively certain he did not. As are lots of other scholars.
My organization that produces on-line courses and events, Paths in Biblical Scholarship (PBS), has decided to host an event that discusses the issue at length. I decided to invite one of the top experts and most widely-published scholars on Q (who is convinced it existed), John Kloppenborg, to engage with Mark Goodacre (on the other side) on the question.
“Did Q Exist?” will be a two day affair. On Feb. 21 there will be four live but remote lectures, two by John K. showing why Q did exist and two by Mark G. showing why it did not. The lectures will be followed by Q&A and Discussion. Whoa. THEN, the next week, on Feb. 28, they will have a face to face (remote) discussion between themselves about it.
How good does it get? No better than this.
Again, this is not a blog event. But many blog members will be interested. If you’re one of them, click on this link for more information and registration. And may the Truth Prevail!!
We have two goals at Ehrman Blog. One is to increase your knowledge of the New Testament and early Christianity. The other is to raise money for charity! In fact, in 2022, we raised over $360,000 for the charities below.
You must be logged in to post a comment.Over $2 Million Donated to Charity!
Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms
23 Comments
Leave A Comment
the link says that “BSA members have access to the event”–what’s a BSA member? I am a BS Artist, but I doubt that’s what BSA stands for.
Ah, sorry ’bout that. Biblical Studies Academy: it is not connected with the blog but is a prescription (streaming) service featuring online courses and events that I (and others) do. You can learn about it at my website http://www.bartehrman.com disabledupes{a208d1601d09106faca368eda4d14951}disabledupes
Random thought, but is it possible that Matthew and Luke used a longer version of Mark than the one we have and that contained the Q passages? I.e., is it possible to fit Q into our Mark to make a coherent document?
It’s theoretically possible, of course. My view is that every hypothesis needs to be considered. In this case, I can’t thin kof evidence that this is what happened, and some good arguments against it. (Including why Luke would changed the sequence of all the sayings Matthew would have taken from mark that were later left out of Mark by someone else, without knowing which sayings would be taken out and which left)
What led to the scholarly consensus belief in Q’s existence over the possibilities that Luke copied from Matthew or Matthew copied from Luke?
One of the main things was that if Luke copied Matthw, or the other way around, it was hard to explain why their shared sayings not in Mark were so regularly put in a different sequence, but the Markan materials were sequenced very much alike. Why change the order of non-Markan material so regularly? Doesn’t make sense.
Hi Bart Ehrman, how are you?
About “they have verbatim agreements all over the place” can you give me 1-3 samples of the word-for-word so I can check that myself?
Not that my opinion matters too much but I think Q is very much aligned with the historical Jesus pursue and I think its vital to study the Q possibility and of course to study the Historical Jesus as well.
Thanks!
You can find a list of passages here: https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q-contents.html
Was Luke written at the same time as Acts? There is debate about the time Acts was written? If Acts was written in the second century, it seems likely that Luke used Matthew as a source?
On a different note, Matthew references Enoch and Jubilees? Were these books considered Scripture in ancient Israel, or were they held in higher esteem in the Greek speaking Jewish communities of the Empire? Does Matthew compare Jesus to Enoch?
I’d say that the date of Luke dcan’t be used to know whether he used Matthew or not; that has to be based on an analysis of the two texts in relation to each other. (I could write an account of Jesus today that is not based on Matthew; to know if it is or not would require a detailed comparison of the contents)
Excellent timing, came here to ask about Q!
I’ve been reading an author (R.G. Price) who claims that the Q material can’t have originally been independent of Mark but must have been part of an original longer version of Mark (which both Matthew and Luke used). Now, I disagree with nearly all of Price’s other arguments so I don’t take this very seriously, and I’ve also read the pro-Q argument you’ve made here in the past and think it sounds sensible. But he did make an interesting point that I don’t have an answer to, and I wanted to see whether you did.
What he argues is that the Q material is too tightly integrated with the Markan material to have been added later. The example he gives is the Temptation scene. Mark does have this, but it’s very brief. Matthew and Luke both integrate Q material into this in the same way, which he argues is too much to be a coincidence. He claims there are ‘dozens’ of similar cases in the gospels, although he doesn’t give further examples.
Thanks for any thoughts you have.
I think the big problem is that he’s precisely wrong (!): the vast majority of the Q material has no connctoin with the Markan material, apart from the preaching of John the Baptist and the Temptation narrative.
Here’s how I think it played out. Someone wrote a narrative account of Jesus’ life (what we know as the Gospel of Mark) and it was widely received. Someone else compiled a collection of Jesus’ sayings (what we call Q) and that, too, gained broad acceptance. Then another author combined the two, weaving Q material into Mark to produce the Gospel of Matthew, which most people found compelling.
One person, however (Luke) wasn’t satisfied with how the material had been arranged. So he went back to Mark and the sayings source, and working from those two, composed his own account with what he considered a more orderly structure.
This explains both the differences between Matthew and Luke and Luke’s pointed comment about “disorderly” accounts in his prologue. Luke wasn’t dependent on Matthew in the way Goodacre proposes, but he was aware of Matthew’s Gospel… which accounts for the shared “double tradition” material between Matthew and Luke.
Where is the link?
You can find the event at my website http://www.bartehrman.com
It is not a document. It is the “Q” Community. How did Luke, a Gentile, interview Jewish disciples if Jews refused to associate with Gentiles? Luke interviewed the “Q” Community. The 180 BCE Group.
Hi Bart,
Muslims claim that the gospels originally read like the Quran, but that heretics rewrote what we have today. I say, “OK, show me *one* piece of evidence to support/prove the claim and I’ll believe it.” They can’t do it. Zero evidence exists. The same thing is true with Q. Show me one piece of historical literature that speaks of a Q or one document of Q and I’ll believe it. Show me the evidence. We have thousands of Gospel documents, but no Q document (csntm.org).
The biblical (textual) evidence (Luke1:1-4) tells us that Luke put together his account not from a Q, but rather after investigating the claims of multiple eyewitnesses. Mark was not an eyewitness so I would also conclude that Luke did not use Mark as his primary source either.
ALL Patristic literature unanimously says that Mark’s gospel is the result of Mark taking dictation from Peter, not from Mark using a Q. Please show me any evidence to the contrary if you can. I can’t see paying $50 to listen to the debate; maybe if it was free, I’m more interested in what Dr. Ehrman has to say : )
I think the problem is that we expect “evidence” to be something like “archaeological findings.” You can’t find “evidence” of that sort for lots of things in history. You have to look at the arguments, not simply say that we don’t have any fragment of Q. There is substantial “evidence” that Matthew and Luke shared a written source. You might not consider the evidence compelling, but to say there is no evidence is simply not to look at the evidence that it exists. Very smart people who don’t really have a horse in the race one way or another find it confincing.
Luke doesn’t say that he investigated the claims of multiple eyewitnesses. He says that many had written accounts that originated with eyewitnesses and ministers of the word. Not the same thing.
Finally, patristic literature if unanimous on all sorts of things that we (well, most critical scholars) do not think are historical. As an obvious example, they universally think the sayings of Jesus in the fourth Gospel are historically correct to the word.
What you are considering evidence, the courts consider conjecture (see your state jury instructions under *evidence*). What you suggest as evidence is in reality hypothetical assumption, not fact. Next, you said, “There is substantial “evidence” that Matthew and Luke shared a written source.” What source? What evidence? What can I present to the jury besides a philosophical argument?
Next, you said, “Luke doesn’t say that he investigated the claims of multiple eyewitnesses. He says that many had *written* accounts that originated with eyewitnesses….” No, Luke doesn’t say written(grapho) accounts he says ἀνατάξασθαι(anataxasthai), which is anatassomai. It signifies arranging, or organizing a narrative in proper order. It’s a combination of ana(up, again) and tassomai(to arrange or set in order). However, Luke does use grapho about his own work(1:3).
“Having investigated” in Luke 1:3 is παρηκολουθηκότι(transliterated as parēkolouthēkoti). It implies not mere awareness, but a rigorous, sustained, and intellectual, or factual, investigation; verification of statements and events. It’s usage in Luke 1:3 is in conjunction with akribōs(“diligently,” “accurately”), emphasizing that Luke conducted meticulous, detailed, and thorough research rather than relying on hearsay. Luke wasn’t investigating a Q(grapho), he was verifying the statements of eyewitnesses. “Facts handed down to Luke by eyewitnesses(1:2).”
Rebuttal?
The solutoin to the Synoptic Problem is based on data, not philosophy. Are you familiar with the arguments? They are decidedly not philosophical in nature.
Yes, Luke does indicate that he was writing. Since your question is getting into the weeds, it might be easier just to do it in the Greek. ἀνατάσσω is a hapax legomena in the entire Bible, and a rare word elsewhere. It occurs only 5 times in all of Greek before the Common Era and only 3x in the first century (including here). It typically means “to go through” or to “rehearse.” Since the object is διήγησιν (= narrative) and it is referring to what “others” have done based on earlier eyewitness and ministerial reports (and therefore in differentiation from them) it appears not be referring to an oral but a written composition. (I don’t believe in any of the 7 earlier uses it is used with διήγησιν, but I haven’t checked).
It may be easy to over-translate or push too hard on the meaning of παρακολουθέω. Like most compound words (well, most words…) it has a range of meaning. Most basically it means something like “to follow closely.” it can mean to follow closely in someone’s footsteps, to accrue debt, to pay close attention, to understand what someone is saying, to become acquainted wiht someone/something; to be conscious of someone/something, etc. It does not usually refer to a rigorous, sustained, intellectual investigation.
ἀκριβῶς is an adverb, and teh questoin is which verb is it modifying: paying attention or writing. I’m not sure there’s a way to decide definitively, given the structure of the sentence (i.e., he placement of the modifiers ἄνωθεν and καθεξῆς). My sense is that he’s claiming to have “followed all things” from the beginning and to write an account that is in correct sequence and accurate (presumably in contrast to the others who have put their shoulders to the wheel but haven’t done an adequate job of it).
Luke gives no indication that he himself has talked to any eyewitnesses. If he had done so, given the efforts he is making to accuracy and authority, it’s hard to imagine him not saying so.
As you probalby know, this is a standard way for ancient historians to begin their work, by assuring their readers that they have done the research, have good sources, acknowledge they have predecessors, and vow to present an accurate account. The fact that Luke is writing this prologue in such high level Greek (better than anything else in his entire long two-volume work) shows that he’s trying to assure his readers that he is standing in a solid line of quality historiographers.disabledupes{2ad91687f9c6a8d9f4c549969acbbc4b}disabledupes
Thanx for your response. You asked, “Are you familiar with the arguments(to the Synoptic Problem)?” Only at a first semester level, but I’m always up for learning.
When there’s a lack of physical evidence a manuscript scientist uses logical conjecture to provide a possibility; that’s what Q is, an explanation of possibility, not a proven fact….correct? Even the first line explaining the debate, *Did Q Exist,* says, “For over a century, scholars have *assumed*…..‘Q’.”
Yes logical, but still an assumption. You have often stressed the importance of manuscript/document evidence. I wish we had some here.
You said,
“the object is διήγησιν (= narrative)….it appears not be referring to an oral but a written composition.” I don’t see exegesis demanding Grapho over proforikos/lego.
And,
“Very smart people who don’t really have a horse in the race one way or another find it convincing.” Highly educated people also believe the Warren Commission’s report. Poor argument.
And,
“patristic literature is unanimous on all sorts of things that most critical scholars do not think are historical.” This doesn’t disprove *the fact* that Mark’s gospel was unanimously known to be the product of dictation from Peter.
Sorry, I find the arguments to be weak/implausible.
continue:
OK. Yes, that’s right, Q is a hypothetical source. And as with all strong hypotheses, accepting it, as it turns out, creates FEWER problems than rejecting it. So it is not “assumed” in terms of the evidence, it’s assumed only in the sense that most people who haven’t actually dug into the evidence at any great length accept it. Just as I assume Einstein’s understanding of gravity (which is beyond a hypothesis) is correct without doing the science. (Since I can’t!)
For the sake of making a point, let’s say that Q is correct, that early dating of the gospels is incorrect, that the gospel writers are anonymous/non-contemporaries of Jesus, and that Bible inerrancy is incorrect. If this is true, does it invalidate/refute the New Testament claim that eternal life comes by faith in Jesus(John3:16, 6:40, Galatians2:16, Ephesians2:8, 1st John5:11-13 etc) and that faith comes by hearing the word of God(Romans 10:17)? Does it refute the biblical claim that scripture is alive and a revealer of the intentions and desires of the heart(Hebrews4:12)? That it accomplishes a purpose and reveals God(Isaiah55:8-11)? That it is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path(Psalm119:105)? That it is useful for teaching, refuting, correction, and training in righteousness(2nd Timothy3:16)? No it doesn’t.
If scripture is analyzed solely as historical literature then many spiritual truths will be missed. Unless a person has been spiritually regenerated(born again) they will not understand the spiritual truths(1stCorinthians2:14). If in the subconscious a person doesn’t want to believe in God they will find reasons in the manuscripts for unbelief(Matthew13:10-15). If they want to believe they will also find reasons in scripture to do so.
Consider Pascal’s wager