Loading...I can now return to my thread dealing with a question asked by a reader: if I could choose, which of the lost books from Christian antiquity would I want to be discovered? My first and immediate answer was: the lost letters of Paul. My second answer is what I will deal with here. I would love – we would all love – to have a discovery of Q.
Many readers of the blog will know all about Q. Many will know something about Q. Many will have never heard of Q. So here’s the deal.
Scholars since the 19th century have worked out the relationship of the Synoptic Gospels with one another. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called “synoptic” because they tell many of the same stories, often in the same sequence, and sometimes in exactly the same words. Synoptic means “seen together.” You can “see” these Gospels “together” by laying them side by side and noting their abundant similarities (and differences). But the only way they could have such extensive similarities (especially the verbatim agreements) is if they were copying one another or are copying a common source.
It has long been known that Mark was the earliest Gospel and that Matthew and Luke used it as a source for many of their stories. But Matthew and Luke have a number of traditions about Jesus in common that are not found in Mark – for example the Lord’s Prayer and the Beatitudes. Almost all (not entirely all) of these traditions are sayings of Jesus.
And so scholars in 19th century Germany who worked out a solution to the “Synoptic Problem” (the problem of explaining why the Synoptics have such precise similarities among themselves and yet so many differences) suggested that since it appears that Matthew did not get these sayings from Luke or Luke from Matthew (see below), they hypothesized a one-time source, now lost, that they called the Sayings Source. The German word for “source” is Quelle. And so this hypothetical document is called Q for short.
Some scholars today doubt …
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN ALREADY!!! Your membership fees all go to important charities!
About “sayings” of Jesus in general: are all or most scholars convinced that those attributed to him in the Synoptic Gospels really were his…and original with him?
I don’t doubt that he existed. An apocalyptic preacher from Galilee, whose disciples believed he was the Messiah before he was crucified, and wouldn’t give up that belief. But can we be sure the teachings attributed to him really did come from that (probably not well-educated) preacher, and not from a number of sources that have been jumbled together?
No, each saying has to be judged on its own historical merits, applying rigorous criteria.
Are there sayings of Jesus from extra-biblical gospels/sources that you think Jesus actually said? Do you talk about this is misquoting Jesus or in your other books?
I don’t think there’s a good chance that any of the non-canonical sayings is authentic.
Could Thomas be a source for Matthew and Luke if it were viewed independent from the 19th century created one? Q means source that only has linguistic significance in that Q is an abbreviation of a word whose definition means source. The Q document however seems to have taken on an identity that exceeds its simple abbreviated definition. This Q source has been imagined into actual form of a document which itself was produced using the gospels as a source. So we have a source that’s been constructed using the gospels as a source for which it is suppose to be the source of? After finding GThomas, a gospel consisting of just sayings of Jesus, scholars reject it being Q because it did not match to what the 19th century constructed document said it should, but then, these scholars turned and used Gthomas as a source to reconstruct the Q document they authored. Could there ever be a document discovered that would meet this source that scholars have imagined? It seems unlikely as this document was put into form in the 19th century and therefore would not have existed at all in this exact form in the 1st century.
Many thanks for showing how Matthew’s habits in using Mark’s material shed light on how he likely Q.
Given the above, when you say, “these stories found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark are almost always inserted into a different sequence of Mark’s narrative,” should we conclude that Matthew “clumped” the Q sayings in with the Mark verses while Luke “scattered” them in a variety of contexts?
yes, probably.
You discussion on Q is very good and I appreciate the inclusion of the section from your text book, especially the list of common passages…I would like to see ore of that list.
QUESTION…..I have a copy of the 1959 edition of the first translation of the Gospel Of Thomas and I have been interested in its relationship with Q. If you have not already done so, could you say more about Thomas and the Q document? Thank you.
Yes, I’ll post on this, possibly next!
Two questions for the ever-growing “Further Readings” pile:
1] If you had to recommend a single (accessible) book that surveyed current thought about Q, what would it be?
2] Who do you think does the most reasonable job of presenting the case _against_ Q?
(That is, while I assume you wouldn’t agree with the conclusion of such a book –and that we, as the readers of the blog, probably wouldn’t expect to be convinced by the arguments– I still think that, given the apparently overwhelming evidence in support of the existence of Q, it would be interesting to see what form such an argument might take.)
1) You might think about David Alan Black Rethinking the Synoptic Problem or Mark Goodacre The Synoptic Problem
2) Mark Goodacre, The Case Against Q
I agree we’d most love to have many, some, even one or two, of the other letters of Paul. But I’m not sure Q rates so high among the missing. I mean, can’t it be said that we do have most of Q? Can’t we assume, on the hypothesis it existed and both Matthew and Luke had it at hand, that between the two of them they knew it was good stuff and recorded most–ninety percent? at the very very least seventy percent–of it? So I’m not saying Q isn’t very valuable. I’m saying ex [the q] hypothesis we pretty much have Q, so t’s not exactly a missing document. After all, whole books have been concocted that seem to purport not only to set down for us (the great bulk of) Q, but also to treat it as a document comparable to the gospels that have come down to us, and find in it two or three layers, some of which are late and some of which go straight back to (very near) Jesus himself. I get the impression you’re not entirely persuaded that what we have of Q lends itself to this type of analysis. Am i right? And is it true that via Luke and Matthew, on the Q hypothesis we do have a lot of Q come down to us today? (What missing documents might rate as high as Paul’s letters? The very first written recollections of the deeds and sayings of Jesus, whatever their date, whoever recorded them. Which might be Q, but maybe–probably??– not. Or does that make sense?)
(The case of the missing Q material: on the Q hypothesis, the chose the same passages to record in their gospels. What can we infer as to how much they did not choose ot record?)
Yes, I don’t agree with the “layers of Q” arugument. Maybe I’ll post on this.
Prof Ehrman, I apologize for going off topic but I have a (what I hope is) a small request. I have been submerging myself in Historical Jesus scholarship for the past year or so, but now I feel like I want to move a little bit forward into Paul. I have just ordered E.P. Sander’s “Paul and Palestinian Judaism” on Amazon to begin with. Could you please recommend me other must-read books on Pauline Scholarship? I am in particular interested in perhaps a textbook that give historical exegesis to Paul’s Letters.
Thank you in advance!
Another classic is J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle. A very different kind of classic study is Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians. ONe of the most intriguing is Dale Martin, The Corinthian Body. And the most recent good treatment is Albert Harrill Paul the Apostle. Maybe I’ll post on this question soon.
From the way you explained it Q seems to be the best explanation for the first 3 gospels. You had mentioned that even though most scholars today would agree on Q, but some actually don’t.
How do the ones that don’t think Q document existed explain it otherwise? Is there another way to explain the similarities and differences that is somewhat feasible?
They say that Luke copied Matthew or, better, both Matthew and Mark.
Another group of scholars is now emerging who don’t think the (conventional) Q existed. They argue that Matthew used Luke. This is an interesting angle because the conventional arguments against Luke’s use of Matthew don’t work in reverse. E.g. ‘Why would Luke break of the Sermon on the Mount’? The difference between Matthew’s Sermon and Luke becomes explicable on the basis that Matthew sought to supplement Luke’s sermon by drawing in related materials from his sources (including other parts of Luke). This option has had very little attention previously – but there is now a monograph on the subject by Robert K MacEwen. I have a couple of articles on Matthew’s use of Luke, which also offer an explanation for the phenomenon of Alternating Primitivity, due out next year. Video previews of these papers are available via http://www.alangarrow.com/synoptic-problem.html
Is “the voice” of Q fairly consistent in the Koine Greek when broken out from Mt/Lk, or does it seem that it could be yet another amalgam of different writers?
There are debates about that. I may cover it in a future post.
Are there any reasons for thinking Q couldn’t be the Matthew described by Papias?
I suppose the biggest problem is that Q appears to have been in Greek, not Hebrew.
This may be similar to Jason’s question above; but, is there any evidence within the use of the Greek whether Q (or any part of Q) could be a translation from Hebrew? Probably hoping for too much but…
For the verbatim agreements of matthew and luke in Greek, it would need to have been a Greek text.
You seem to argue in favor of a single written document for Q? Why couldn’t it be a collection of minor scripts? If so, it would be easier to explain why there are no ancient explicit references to Q. These hypothetical minor documents must then have been important enough to be brought to the attention of both Matthew and Luke, or at least the majority of them. L & M could then belong to this group. Or am I wrong?
All we can say is that Matthew and Luke must be using the same single source in places, becuase they are word-for-word the same. But there are probably a group of do cuments of vearious kinds back there.
Great post Dr Ehrman, Can you please tell us in a future post about the argument commonly used against Q, namely the problem of minor agreements, and how pro-Q academics respond to it? Thanks again.
Yes, I’ll probably get around to this eventually — but it’s hard to do (it becomes very academic very quick)
This would be a great post!
If it’s complicated that doesn’t speak well for the argument though.
Dr. Ehrman, Those 19th Century German scholars, were they primarily Lutheran or Catholic? Or were they both working in different institutions?
Mostly Protestant.
Is Q really a lost book when no one found it in the first place? Does any ancient source refer to this? It’s my understand that it’s a modem synthesis, what Luke and Matthew have in common.
Also you say “Matthew and Luke have stories not found in Mark, and in these stories they sometimes agree word for word.” and say this is evedence of some other writing. Well that’s true if one just copied from the other!
Well, if Matthew and Luke had it and used it, and it no longer survives, then it would be lost!
Wow! What an excellent review of “Q.” My favorite section in the Bible is the parable of the sheep and the goats.
Hello Dr. Ehrman,
I have two questions: The Gospel of John does not contain the story of the trials of Jesus in the wilderness after his baptism. Instead, he goes straight to teaching and performing miracles. Why do you think that is? And–do most of the ancient and numerous copies of what ultimately became the canonical Gospels contain the story of the last supper? If so, or if not, any ideas why that would be? I’m just wondering about why various Christian denominations value or devalue the concept of the Eucharist. Thanks! -Jen
There are no demons in John either. Jesus is not really temptable in John. And yest, the Lord’s supper is in all our manuscripts. It’s in them, no doubt, becuase it was in the original forms of the Gospels.
I’ve often wondered if Q might ‘be’ the document(s) derived from the author (Luke?) given Acts Chapter 1:
“In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen…. ”
There are hints to other documents elsewhere in Paul’s writings which I *guess* could be either Q or L.
(just throwing out my uneducated guess how I’ve come to understand *Q* over the years…)
Many thanks,
The problem is that Luke is referring to his earlier own book, the Gospel, which itself appears to have used Q (not to have been Q)
Since we are in Q material, how would you fill in the blank “give us this day our ____ bread”? What do you make of the word “Epiousios”?
My guess is about as good and bad as anyone’s. As you know, it’s a very strange and inexplicable word!
This is one of several things I’ve come upon the last few weeks–http://markgoodacre.org/Q/ten.htm
This post wasn’t that long ago, so I’m assuming most scholars feel the same about Q. Marc Goodacre gives 10 reason why the existence of Q should be doubted.
Mark is one of the view people arguing that Q did not exist. He makes the best arguments there are, but my sense is that the majority of scholars remain unconvinced.
Dear Bart Ehrman,
I have a question regarding the Q source. I have read about the Q source in your NT textbook and it sounds as a plausible explanation to my ears for the Synoptic problem but if Q was a written source and served as a source for both Matthew and Luke, wouldn’t the early church fathers have mentioned this Q source any of their writings? Or am I missing something here?
Only if they knew about it. (And realize, we have only a tiny fraction of the writings of early Chrsitains — it may well have been mentioned by others). My guess is that Q simply was never copied and circulated after the first century: no one saw a need for it, if they already had it, in a fuller form, in either Matthew or Luke.
It is worth asking about the beliefs that Q introduces — in the context of Luke and Matthew.
(A) Mark it can be argued never knew Q. But Q introduces certain additions to Markian Divinity
(B) Isaac typology and the Avatarhood as seen in Isaiah. This is not seen in Mark but is seen in Matthew
and Luke
(C) The Trinitarian background is inherited from non Judaic sources notably other polytheistic religions like Hinduism
(D) The “Son of God” theology is not echoed by Jesus himself in Mark, but is taught in Luke and Matthew
So the questions around Q being a possible “non-traditional” Jewish source and offering “a more than Pauline Christology” is not asked.
Simply put, “Was Q more of a Trinitarian than Paul?”. And does this make Bart Ehrmann and Mark Goodacre more uncomfortable!!??
My view is that Mark did not know Q; and that neither Mark nor Q (nor any other writing of the Bible) is trinitarian.
Are there any sayings in the NT that most probably go to Jesus except his apocalyptic message? Perhaps anything in Aramaic?
Sure, lots. I talk about them in my book Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet (e.g., “Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath….)
For each of the sayings on Q, would they have to be separately judged historically to see if they go back to Jesus?
I’ve read your book (great by the way), but wanted to know your *present* opinion. Which of your favourite sayings in Q go back to him? I know you like the sabbath one! 🙂
Yes, each saying of Q and of every other source has to be considered individually, based on every relevant consideration. My favorite part of Q? Good question, I’m not sure I’ve ever thought about it. I have always been drawn to the Lord’s Prayer (only part of which is assuredly Q; I prefer Matthew’s version, as I suppose most people do)
Could the lost Q source be a Greek translation of the original form of the Gospel of Matthew back when it was still in the form of “the words of the Lord in the Hebrew language” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III 39,16)?
In theory most any source theory is possible. The problem is that Q appears to have been a Greek composition, as was Matthew, not a translation from a Semitic original (for linguistic reasons)
But there does appear to be residue of Hebrew in the hypothetical Q:
“Hate” can also mean to love less or to put second in Hebrew as in Genesis 29:31 in reference to Jacob’s favoritism of Rachel over Leah. “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple” (Luke 14:26). Matthew appears to have conducted a more semantic translation (in Matthew 10:37) of his original source than Luke’s literal translation.
Wording such as ‘key’ can also mean authority in Hebrew. See Isaiah 22:20: “keys to the house of David”, Sanhedrin 113a:114: “the key to rainfall, and the key to the resurrection of the dead”.
“Woe to you Lawyers, for you have taken away the key of knowledge” (Luke 11:52); elsewhere “keys to the kingdom of the heavens” (Matthew 16:19).
Other phraseology like “Beelzebub”, “lamp” (see Proverbs 6:23), “cast out your name as evil”, ‘good eye’, ‘evil eye’ are either Hebrew words or idioms and the grammatical construction of a verb of motion followed by an infinitive (Luke 12:49, in Hebrew, ‘intend to’) potentially bear the marks of attempts to translate the Hebrew past tense using the Greek aorist tense.