Q
1:
Q (GOSPEL SOURCE). “Q” (the abbreviation for German Quelle, “source”) is the name scholars have given to the hypothetical source that would account for the gospel material (not found in Mark) that Matthew and Luke have in common.
———
A. Nature of Q
1. Existence
2. Language
3. Unity
B. Theology of Q
C. Sitz im Leben
D. Conclusion
———
A. Nature of Q
1. Existence. Within the terms of the Two-Source theory as the solution to the SYNOPTIC PROBLEM, the agreements between the three Synoptic Gospels are accounted for in two ways. In most of the passages where all three gospels are parallel (the “triple tradition”), Matthew and Luke depend on Mark’s gospel. In other parts of the tradition where Matthew and Luke are parallel (the “double tradition”), the agreements between those two gospels are explained by their dependence on common source material. This material is usually known as “Q.”
Some have tried to dispense with Q as part of a wholesale rejection of the Two-Source theory in favor of the Griesbach hypothesis (Farmer 1964; Dungan 1970); others have retained the theory of Markan priority but have questioned whether one needs to posit a lost source Q to explain Matthew’s agreements with Luke: Luke’s dependence on Matthew might be an adequate explanation (Farrer 1955; Goulder 1978). Nevertheless, the majority of scholars today would favor a form of the Q hypothesis, rejecting for a variety of reasons the theory of Luke’s dependence on Matthew. See SYNOPTIC PROBLEM.
For those who would accept some form of the Q hypothesis, the extent of the Q material is reasonably clear. This material covers all the double tradition; it also includes some passages where there is a Markan parallel (the Temptation narrative, the Beelzebul controversy, the parable of the mustard seed and others), so that Mark and Q must have overlapped in places.
Consideration of the Markan tradition in Matthew and Luke shows that at times the latter evangelists omitted material from their Markan source. It is clearly possible that the same has happened with Q: some passages available to both evangelists may have been omitted by one (or both) of Matthew and Luke. Speculation about Q material which is in neither Matthew nor Luke is clearly futile. However, several have argued that in various cases, some passages which occur only in Matthew or Luke might be Q material which the other evangelist has omitted (Schürmann). Nevertheless, such theories must remain slightly speculative. Further, they usually depend quite heavily on a prior understanding of Q as a whole into which the passage in question fits easily. Such additions to Q would then not significantly alter the character of Q as a whole (Vassiliadis 1978). Most are therefore content to work with a fairly minimal definition of Q, i.e., as material common to Matthew and Luke, before possibly expanding this with an occasional Sondergut passage. Thus a widely acceptable starting point for discussion of Q would include the following verses: Luke 3:7–9, 16f.; 4:1–13; 6:20–23, 27–49; 7:1–10, 18–35; 9:57–60; 10:2–16, 21–24; 11:2–4, 9–20, 23–26, 29–35, 39–52; 12:2–12, 22–31, 33f., 39–46, 51–53, 57–59; 13:18–21, 23–30, 34–35; 14:16–24, 26–27, 34–35; 15:4–7; 16:13, 16–18; 17:3–4, 6, 23–24, 26–30, 33–37; 18:14; 19:12–27; 22:28–30 with the Matthean parallels (clearly with debates about individual verses, especially in the longer sections). (It has become customary to refer to verses in Q by referring to their Lukan references only; this is in no way intended to prejudge the issue of whether Matthew or Luke has preserved the Q version more accurately.)
2. Language. The problem of the original language of Q has been discussed frequently. Some have claimed that the verbal differences between Matthew and Luke in Q material can often be explained as due to variant translations of an Aramaic original. Hence Q must have been an Aramaic source. Perhaps the most famous example is Matt 23:26/Luke 11:41, where the difference between Matthew’s “cleanse” and Luke’s “give alms” has been explained as due to a slight misunderstanding/misreading of an original Aramaic dakkau (= “cleanse”), being mistakenly read as zakkau (= “give alms”). Appeals have also been made to the Semitic nature of much of Q’s language (Bussmann 1929; Bussby 1954).
It is doubtful if more than a very few cases of variation between Matthew and Luke can be explained in this way. The Semitic nature of Q’s Greek does not demand an Aramaic Vorlage: influence from is quite conceivable in a Greek-speaking Jewish-Christian milieu. Many of the alleged translation variants turn out to be simply cases of synonyms, and the differences between Matthew and Luke can often be explained just as well as due to the redactional activity of the evangelists (Kloppenborg 1987). For example, in Luke 11:41, Luke’s “give alms” may well be LkR (Lukan redaction), reflecting Luke’s concern for almsgiving. In other parts of the Q material, the verbal agreement between Matthew and Luke amounts to virtual verbal identity in Greek (Luke 3:7–9; 11:9–10 and pars.). In these instances the measure of verbal agreement seems to demand a common Greek source. Further, some features of Q’s Greek can be shown to be characteristic of a source originally written in Greek and uncharacteristic of translation Greek (Turner 1969). This suggests that much of the Q material was available to Matthew and Luke in Greek form. This leads to the question of whether the Q material should be regarded as a single source.
3. Unity. Even among those who would deny that Luke knew Matthew and hence would affirm that Matthew and Luke depend on common source material, there has always been dispute as to whether it is appropriate to think of this material as a single source, Q. Some have argued that the Q material never existed as a unified source prior to its inclusion by Matthew and Luke. “Q” may simply represent a mass of oral traditions. (Jeremias; Wrege). Others have pointed to the fact that Q apparently contained no passion narrative. Is it then credible to think of a written source containing a mass of Jesus traditions but no account of the passion? Further, Q seems to lack any formal structure, starting apparently with a strong narrative element but petering out into a mass of unrelated sayings (Farrer 1955). There is also the problem of the measure of verbal agreement between Matthew and Luke. In some instances Matthew and Luke are almost identical in Greek (Luke 3:7–9 and par.); at other times the verbal agreement is minimal (Luke 14:16–24; 19:12–27 and pars.) (Rosché 1960). Hence Bussmann’s theory of two sources, one Greek and one Aramaic.
These arguments are not conclusive. The measure of variation in verbal agreement between Matthew and Luke in Q passages has been shown to be statistically comparable to the measure of verbal agreement between these two gospels in Markan passages (Carlston and Norlin 1971). It may be that Q was available to the evangelists in slightly different forms (a Qmt and a Qlk) as it is sometimes not easy to account for all the differences between the gospels as due to MattR or LkR. But it remains uncertain how far it is necessary to make such an appeal. The theory that Q represents a mass of oral traditions does not account for the common order in Q material, which can be discerned once Matthew’s habit of collecting related material into his large teaching discourses is discounted (Taylor 1953, 1959). Such a common order demands a theory that Q at some stage existed in written form.
The argument based on the lack of a Passion Narrative in Q, and the apparent formlessness of Q, is also weak. Its strength depends on an a priori assumption of what “must” have stood in a source containing information about Jesus. Q clearly cannot have been a “gospel” of the same nature as the canonical gospels. But the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas has shown us that it was possible for some Christians to write a “gospel” with no passion narrative (Robinson 1971, 1986). Further, Kloppenborg (1987) has shown that the form of Q, as a collection of sayings together with some introductory narrative scenes, can be paralleled in several sayings collections in antiquity. The genre of Q is thus not a problem for the theory of its existence.
None of the arguments against the existence of Q as a single source is fully convincing. It is thus best to assume that Q was a single source, available in Greek and probably in written form.
If this is the case, then the source Q is similar to the gospels themselves. It is thus not surprising that many have tried to study Q with techniques similar to those which have been applied to the gospels. In particular, there has been a significant trend in recent years to approach Q from the side of redaction criticism. This involves trying to interpret Q as a unified source in its own right and perhaps with its own distinctive theology. Many have therefore attempted to delineate a “Q theology” and to see what kind of social group of Christians, or “Q community,” might have preserved this material and regarded it as significant.
B. Theology of Q
At this point the problem of the unity of Q arises once again, though in slightly different form. Many who would accept that it is appropriate to think of Q as a single written source, with a characteristic theology, would also argue that Q represents the end product of a quite complex tradition history. There may be various strata within Q so that the tradition may have undergone a complex history of expansion and adaptation. Some would claim to be able to identify a single redactional layer in Q (Lührmann 1969; Schenk 1981). Schulz (1972) distinguishes two main strata within Q, corresponding to two distinct stages in the history of the “Q community.” Polag (1977), Jacobson (1978), Zeller (1982, 1984), Kloppenborg (1987), and Uro (1987) have all argued for at least three redactional strata in Q (though with little agreement in details). Schürmann (1968) postulates a four-stage growth in the tradition whereby individual sayings were expanded by secondary comments (Kommentarworte) which at a third stage were combined to form smaller collections before being incorporated into the larger blocks of Q at a final stage. Many have argued, for example, that the Temptation narrative is quite unlike the rest of Q and hence is probably a relative latecomer into the Q tradition.
It must, however, also be remembered that a division of a text into various strata (whether it be a simple twofold division into “tradition + redaction” or a more complex theory of strata) is not the only key which will unlock the secrets of a writer’s theology. A decision to include a tradition, perhaps unaltered, may be just as positive an editorial action as an alteration into a tradition. One should not therefore write off much of the Q material as “merely” traditional and hence having nothing to contribute to Q’s theology. One must also beware of making a writer too monochromatic, so that different types of material directed to different audiences, are ipso facto taken as indications of distinct strata within the history of the tradition. So, too, it is perhaps dangerous to assume too readily that we know precisely the way in which the tradition developed from individual sayings to larger complexes. One can sometimes identify ways in which Q material seems to have been redactionally modified, especially in some of the arrangement of the material (Lührmann 1969; Kloppenborg 1984). But the situation is clearly more complex than in the case of Matthew’s and Luke’s use of Mark since we do not have Q’s traditions directly available to compare with Q: we do not even have Q itself directly available. Thus one must be prepared to allow that the substance of the Q material itself, and the choice of which traditions are included, can also help in the clarification of Q’s theology (Hoffmann 1972).
A basic presupposition of much contemporary Q study is that the group of Christians who preserved the Q material did so because they believed that this material was still valid and relevant for their own day. The Jesus tradition was thus not a matter of teaching which had been given in the past but was no longer applicable. Rather, the teaching of Jesus was taken up and applied to the present. Further, the preachers of this tradition claimed that in their own preaching, the voice of the present Jesus was to be heard (Luke 10:16 par.). While a verse like Luke 12:10/Matt 12:32 might suggest some awareness of a distinction between the pre-Easter and post-Easter situations, the main bulk of the Q tradition is formulated with the assumption that Jesus’ words are still valid. The contemporizing present, “I say to you,” predominates as opposed to any historicizing tendencies (Boring 1982).
One theme which is universally recognized as characterizing much of the Q material is that of eschatological warning. A great deal of Q is concerned with this theme of imminent judgment, which may be catastrophic for those who are unprepared and do not “repent.” Older views of Q had sought to explain Q as a kind of paraenetic manual, a supplement to fill out the kerygma of the death of Jesus, which was already presupposed (Manson 1949). Such a theory will not explain the note of warning and crisis which dominates so much of Q. Right at the start, this note of warning is sounded in the preaching of John the Baptist (Luke 3:7–9 par.); this continues through the teaching of Jesus in the Great Sermon, bracketed as it is by the eschatologically oriented beatitudes (Luke 6:20–23 par.) and the eschatological warnings against those who fail to obey Jesus’ words (Luke 6:46–49 par.); the mission charge repeats the note of the imminence of the Kingdom (Luke 10:9 par.); and toward the end of Q there is the eschatological discourse warning of the End, which may come at any time (Lk. 17; 23ff. par.).
It is probable that Q is aware of a delay in the Parousia. The parables in Luke 12:39–40, 42–46; 19:12–27 par. seem to presuppose such a delay (Lührmann 1969; Schulz 1972). Nevertheless, the very form of Q suggests that Q has not given up the vivid expectation of the End which could come at any minute: the fact that Q includes this material implies that the Q Christians regarded it as still valid. Hence Q is dominated by a vivid hope for an imminent End (Hoffmann 1972).
Integrally related to the note of crisis in Q is the theme of polemic. Q is clearly not just a manual for newly converted Christians. Rather it reflects a situation where the Christian community feels itself to be threatened and to be suffering hostility. Lührmann has shown that the note of polemic against “this generation” dominates Q’s arrangement of the material; e.g., in Luke 7:18–35 par., any possible hint of anti-Baptist polemic (Luke 7:18–28 par.) has been overlaid by further material setting Jesus and John the Baptist together against “this generation.” So, too, the discourse against the scribes and Pharisees (Luke 11:37–52 par.) is broadened at the end to become an attack on “this generation” (Luke 11:49–51 par.).
In this polemic, use is often made of a model taken from a Deuteronomistic view of history. In this scheme, Israel’s history is viewed as one of continual disobedience. God sends the prophets to Israel to call the nation to repent; the response is always negative, and the prophets suffer rejection and violence. As a result, God’s wrath has been and will be experienced (Steck 1967). Such a scheme characterizes a significant part of the Q material (Steck 1967; Jacobson 1978; Kloppenborg 1987). Q Christians have evidently experienced rejection of the Christian message; and they interpret this rejection as part of the general violence inflicted on God’s prophetic messengers by impenitent Israel (Luke 6:22–23; 11:49–51; 13:34f.). The prophetic self-understanding of the Q Christians may also be indicated by several formal similarities between much of the Q material and the prophetic literature in the OT (Sato 1988).
Another theme closely associated in Q with that of the suffering prophets is the theme of Wisdom (Sophia). Late Judaism spoke at times of Wisdom as an almost personified being in her own right, and there are also traditions of Wisdom’s preaching being rejected by men (cf. Prov 1:20–33; 8:22–36; 1 Enoch 42). In Q the two streams of tradition—that of rejected Wisdom and the Deuteronomic theme of the violent fate suffered by the prophets—coalesce so that Wisdom herself becomes the agent who sends out the prophets, all of whom suffer violence (Luke 11:49–51; 13:34f. pars.; and also 6:23; 7:31–35; 9:58). Within this pattern, Jesus appears as one (possibly the last) in the line of the suffering prophets. (Hence it is worth noting that Q does not ignore the death of Jesus. Little salvific significance is attributed to Jesus’ death, but the latter is implicitly incorporated into a wider interpretative theological scheme.)
Several of Q’s warnings of eschatological judgment are couched in terms of the coming of the “Son of Man.” The whole question of the Son of Man sayings in Q and the broader question of Q’s christology have aroused much discussion. Some have argued that “Son of Man” reveals Q’s distinctive contribution to christological development within primitive Christianity (Tödt 1965; Edwards 1971). For example, Tödt claimed that the identification of Jesus with the figure of the Son of Man was due to the Q community. Jesus had spoken of the Son of Man as a figure other than himself. On the basis of the resurrection experience, Q achieved the “christological cognition” of identifying the coming Son of Man with Jesus himself and then undertook to continue the preaching of Jesus as still valid in the post-Easter period.
The place of “Son of Man” within Q’s christology is much disputed. Tödt’s theory that originally Jesus thought of the Son of Man as someone other than himself would be questioned by many today. More importantly here, many have questioned whether “Son of Man” reflects Q’s own interests, or whether it was already part of Q’s tradition and hence not relevant for Q’s redaction and thus for Q’s theology (Lührmann 1969; Schürmann). However, the Son of Man saying in Luke 11:30 may well be due to Q’s redaction (Edwards 1971); and in any case, one cannot dismiss all traditional elements in Q as contributing nothing to Q’s theology. It seems therefore best to regard “Son of Man” as a christological “title” of some importance for Q.
Its significance is more debated. It is often thought that “Son of Man” is primarily for Q a reference to Jesus in his capacity as a figure (as judge or advocate) of the end-time (cf. Luke 17:22–37 par.), and it is often pointed out that Q has no “suffering Son of Man” sayings similar to Mark 8:31. Certainly the “eschatological Son of Man” is very strongly represented in Q. However, there are a number of Q sayings referring to the present activity of Jesus as Son of Man (Luke 6:23; 7:34; 9:58; 12:10; and arguably 11:30). Although some have claimed that the use of the term here refers to Jesus as authoritative (Tödt 1965), or to Jesus as returning judge (Hoffmann 1972), it may be relevant that all of these sayings occur in contexts which imply rejection, hostility, and suffering. “Son of Man” is thus a term which seems to be closely linked in Q with these themes (together with the related themes of rejected Wisdom and the suffering prophets). It may be, therefore, that the theme of the “suffering Son of Man” is not so alien to Q as many have claimed (Tuckett 1982).
C. Sitz im Leben
What can be said about the situation of the Christians who preserved the Q material? It is probable that Q reflects a group of Jewish Christians with a fairly conservative attitude to the Jewish Law. It is in Q that we have one of the most conservative statements about the continuing validity of the Law (Luke 16:17 par.); and if, as seems likely, the Lukan context of this saying reflects the Q context, then Q deliberately places 16:17 after 16:16 in order to guard against a possible antinomian interpretation of the latter verse. Elsewhere in Q, the Law is presupposed as still valid and binding on the Christian. The polemic against the scribes and Pharisees in Luke 11:37–52 par. is directed only against their hypocrisy in not obeying the Law themselves. Luke 11:42d may well be a Q-redactional comment to insist that the Law must still be kept. If, as also seems likely, Luke 14:5 par. was part of Q, then Q reflects a sabbath controversy but, unlike Mark, has Jesus operating strictly within the Law to justify his behavior (the rescue of a man in a pit would be accepted by all as a legitimate breach of the sabbath law). Further, much of the argument in the woes against the scribes and Pharisees, especially the woes about purity and tithing, seems to operate within Pharisaic presuppositions (Schulz 1972). Given the fact that the Pharisees were probably a relatively small group within pre-70 Judaism, the virulence of the opposition here may indicate a rather close link between the Q Christians and the Pharisaic movement (if they were not close, then each group would probably have ignored the other).
Whether this is still the case at the stage of Q’s redaction is not certain. Many have claimed that by the time of this stage, the polemic has sharpened and broadened in scope to be directed against “this generation,” a term which refers to the whole Jewish people, not just one part such as the Pharisees (Lührmann 1969; Schürmann 1986). Lührmann has gone further and argued that the sharply polemical tone of Q’s redaction means that Israel now only has the threat of judgment; for Q has embraced the gentile mission, and for the Jewish as a whole there is now no hope at all (Lührmann 1969; Kloppenborg 1987).
The meaning of the term “this generation,” however, is not absolutely certain. Although some claim that it is a technical term for the nation Israel and lacks any temporal reference (Lührmann 1969), it seems hard to exclude all temporal sense from a saying such as Luke 11:31f., par. Thus others have argued that the term does retain a temporal significance, referring to the people of the final generation before the end (Hoffmann 1972; Schulz 1972). Further, it seems doubtful if one can identify “this generation” with the whole of Israel tout court. At the very least, the term must exclude the Q Christians who, as we have seen, were probably Jewish Christians. It thus seems more likely that Q’s polemic is directed against only a part of the Jewish community among which the Q community existed.
The problem of Q’s attitude to gentiles and the gentile mission is also disputed. Q does have several sayings which seem to presuppose a friendly attitude to gentiles (Luke 7:1–10; 10:13–15; 11:31f.; 13:28f. pars.), though others have claimed that these refer only to the past or the future: there is nothing in relation to the present (Hoffmann 1972). Many too have argued that Q’s rather strict attitude to the Law effectively excludes the possibility that Q had undertaken the gentile mission. (Schulz 1972; Wegner 1985).
These arguments are of varying weight. The relationship between the Law and the gentile mission should not be made too simplistic. A gentile mission is not ipso facto incompatible with a conservative attitude to the Law. Even Paul expected his gentile converts to observe considerable parts of the Law without any questioning. Nevertheless, it must be said that the presence of slighting references to gentiles, almost in passing (Matt 5:47 [Luke’s parallel, referring to “sinners,” is generally accepted as LkR]; Luke 12:30 par.), make it hard to believe that Q was engaged in a gentile mission. The natural language of Q seems to assume that “gentiles” are those who are outside the sphere of salvation. Thus the terms of reference seem to be wholly Israel-oriented (unless one can assign the slighting references to an earlier stratum in Q: so Kloppenborg—but then why have they been left unredacted by a later stage of Q?). Gentiles seem to be brought into the picture only to shame the Jewish hearers (Meyer 1970), though whether Q holds out any hope for that audience is not clear.
A much discussed feature of Q arises out of Q’s version of the mission charge. Here the Q missionaries are told to take absolutely nothing for their journey, not even the basic necessities of life such as food or clothing. Elsewhere, too, Q sayings seem to presuppose an extremely radical break with past personal ties. The Q Christians are told that they must “hate” their own families (Luke 14:26 par.); they are told they must take up their cross (Luke 14:27 par.). They are not to worry about their daily needs (Luke 12:22–34 par.) since God will provide for them. They are to be the followers of the Son of Man, who has nowhere to lay his head; and they are to break with their past in such a radical way that they are not even to go home to bury a member of their own family (Luke 9:57–60 par.). These sayings have led to the plausible theory that behind Q lies a group of Christians who obeyed these instructions to the letter. Hence Q presupposes the existence of wandering prophets or charismatics who made a radical break with their own homes and went about preaching the message of the kingdom (Hoffmann 1972; Theissen 1979). However, the presence of sayings like Luke 10:2 par. may suggest that the final stage of Q also presupposes a group of settled Christians providing backup support for the wandering preachers (Zeller 1982, 1984).
The precise meaning of such a lifestyle depends heavily on the social situation in which such action takes place. Such renunciation could be a voluntary act, similar in kind to the renunciation practiced by Cynic preachers but taken to even more radical extremes (Hoffmann 1972). Schottroff has argued that the “renunciation” implied is simply a reflection of the general extreme poverty which all suffered at the time and Q’s preaching is simply a message of how to come to terms with this. Nevertheless, such a theory will not explain all of Q. Q evidently expects other Christians to help the missionaries and provide material support for them: hence some material possessions are assumed. Other sayings only make sense on the same assumption (Luke 16:13; Matt 6:19–21). So too, the sayings about leaving family seem to imply a situation where the Q Christians are in a rather different social situation from that of their neighbors. The lifestyle implied here thus seems to be peculiar to the Christian. In part it is thus a voluntary decision to adopt such a lifestyle and the results are closely connected with the Christian commitment. It is not necessarily something which the Q Christian shares with all his/her contemporaries. This applies particularly in the case of the references to persecution in Q, which are frequently connected with the lifestyle of the wandering charismatics.
Q says much about persecution at a fairly general level. Many have deduced from this that the Q community was suffering very real persecution from its neighbors. At the more “theological” level, it is clear that the Q Christians regard the persecution which they are experiencing as a continuation of the violence suffered by all the prophets in the past. Yet as the latter may be somewhat stylized (not all the prophets suffered violence), the same may be true of Q. Q has a great deal of polemic (against “this generation”) for refusing to accept the message of the prophets past and present, but it is hard to infer that such refusal resulted in actual violence against the Q community. Luke 6:22–23 can be interpreted quite naturally as relating to verbal abuse, social ostracism, and perhaps polite indifference, but not necessarily to any physical violence. The precise meaning of the final woes against the scribes and Pharisees is debated, but a strong case can be made for the penultimate woe (against the tomb builders Luke 11:47–48 par.) being directed against those who simply ignore the present prophetic message and try to distance themselves from the past by building tombs for prophets whom “their fathers” killed: the actual violence belongs to the past alone (Steck 1967; contra Hoffmann 1972). If so, the same may also apply to the doom oracle in Luke 11:49–51, where again the period of physical violence seems to be limited to the OT era. Elsewhere in Q, there is violent polemic against apathy (Luke 17:22–37), strong words against waverers (Luke 11:23), against those who seek signs (Luke 11:29–32, but there is no indication that the sign seekers are being physically violent), against those who might give up their Christian allegiance (Luke 12:9—possibly reflecting a persecution situation, but the polemic is not directed against the persecutors themselves). Luke 16:16 is probably too vague for the reader to know precisely what is in mind. Only Luke 13:34–35 might imply physical violence in the present, though it is not clear how much is present and how much is past.
If could be that the Q community is not suffering a great deal in physical terms. No doubt the Christian message has evoked opposition, some verbal abuse, some polite indifference. So too the wandering preachers have evidently not always found a welcome and been provided with a home (Luke 10:10–11). From the Christian side this was no doubt seen as “persecution,” and it has evidently led to a closing of the ranks and some quite violent denunciation of those outside. But such opposition may not have involved any great measure of physical violence.
D. Conclusion
Recent studies have shown how fruitful a redaction-critical approach to Q can be. At first sight such work may appear to be extremely hypothetical, being based on what some would argue is a very questionable presupposition (the very existence of Q as a single document). However, the very distinctiveness of the Q material as shown by recent redaction-critical studies of Q is in itself an indication that this material did exist as a separate entity at some stage in the development of the synoptic tradition. Theories about the theology of Q, if successful, may therefore provide further support for the hypothesis of the existence of Q. Q may also alert us to the great variety within primitive Christianity. It shows us a version of the Christian faith which is perhaps less cross centered than, say, Paul or Mark; but it is nonetheless real for that.
Bibliography
Boring, M. E. 1982. Sayings of the Risen Jesus. Cambridge.
Bussby, F. 1954. Is Q an Aramaic Document? ExpTim 65: 272–75.
Bussmann, W. 1929. Synoptische Studien. Vol. 2 of Zur Redenquelle. Halle.
Carlston, C. E., and Norlin, D. 1971. Once More—Statistics and Q. HTR 64: 59–78.
Downing, F. G. 1965. Towards the Rehabilitation of Q. NTS 11: 169–81.
Dungan, D. L. 1970. Mark—The Abridgement of Matthew and Luke. Vol. 1, Pp. 51–97 in Jesus and Man’s Hope. 2 vols. Pittsburgh.
Edwards, R. A. 1971. The Sign of Jonah. London.
Farmer, W. R. 1964. The Synoptic Problem. New York.
Farrer, A. 1955. On Dispensing with Q. Pp. 55–88 in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, ed. D. E. Nineham. Oxford.
Goulder, M. D. 1978. On Putting Q to the Test. NTS 24: 218–34.
Hoffmann, P. 1972. Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle. NTA NF 8. Münster.
Jacobson, A. D. 1978. Wisdom Christology in Q. Ph.D. diss., Claremont.
———. 1982. The Literary Unity of Q. JBL 101: 365–89.
Kloppenborg, J. S. 1984. Tradition and Redaction in the Synoptic Sayings Source. CBQ 46: 34–62.
———. 1987. The Formation of Q. Philadelphia.
Lührmann, D. 1969. Die Redaktion der Logienquelle. WMANT 33. Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Manson, T. W. 1949. The Sayings of Jesus. London.
Meyer, P. D. 1970. The Gentile Mission in Q. JBL 89: 405–17.
Nierynck, F. 1982. Recent Developments in the Study of Q. Pp. 29–75 in LOGIA—The Sayings of Jesus, ed. J. Delobel. Louvain.
Polag, A. 1977. Die Christologie der Logienquelle. WMANT 45. Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Robinson, J. M. 1971. LOGOI SOPHON: On the Gattung of Q. Pp. 84–130 in The Future of Our Religious Past: Essays in Honour of Rudolf Bultmann. London.
———. 1986. On Bridging the Gulf from Q to the Gospel of Thomas (or Vice Versa). Pp. 127–76 in Nag Hammadi: Gnosticism and Early Christianity, ed. C. W. Hedrick and R. Hodgson. Peabody.
Rosché, T. R. 1960. The Words of Jesus and the Future of the “Q” Hypothesis. JBL 79: 210–20.
Sato, M. 1988. Q und Prophetie. WUNT 2/29. Tübingen.
Schenk, W. 1981. Synopse zur Redenquelle der Evangelien. Düsseldorf.
Schottroff, L., and Stegemann, W. 1978. Jesus von Nazareth—Hoffnung der Armen. Stuttgart.
Schulz, S. 1972. Q—Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten. Zurich.
Schürmann, H. 1968. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen Evangelien. Düsseldorf.
———. 1975.Beobachtungen zum Menschensohn-Titel in der Redequelle. Pp. 124–47 in Jesus und der Menschensohn: Für Anton Vögtle. Freiburg.
———. 1982. Das Zeugnis der Redenquelle für die Basileia-Verkündigung Jesu. Pp. 121–200 in LOGIA—The Sayings of Jesus, ed. J. Delobel. Louvain.
———. 1986. Die Redekomposition wider “dieses Geschlecht” und seine Führung in der Redequelle (vgl. Mt 23:1-39, Mt 23:1-39 par Lk 11:1-54, Lk 11:37-54). Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt A 11: 33–81.
Steck, O. H. 1967. Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten. WMANT 23. Neukirchen-Vluyn.
Taylor, V. 1953. The Order of Q. JTS 4: 27–31.
———. 1959. The Original Order of Q. Pp. 246–69 in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson, Ed. A. J. B. Higgins. Manchester.
Theissen, G. 1979. Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums. WUNT 19. Tübingen.
Tödt, H. E. 1965. The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition. London.
Tuckett, C. M. 1982. The Present Son of Man. JSNT 14: 58–81.
———. 1984. On the Relationship between Matthew and Luke. NTS 30: 130–42.
Turner, N. 1969. Q in Recent Thought. ExpTim 80: 324–28.
Uro, R. 1987. Sheep among the Wolves: A Study of the Mission Instructions of Q. Helsinki.
Vassiliadis, P. 1978. The Nature and Extent of the Q Document. NovT 20: 49–73.
Wegner, U. 1985. Der Hauptmann von Kafarnaum. WUNT, n.s., 14. Tübingen.
Zeller, D. 1982.Redaktionsprozesse und wechselnder “Sitz im Leben” beim Q-Material. Pp. 395–409 in LOGIA—The Sayings of Jesus, ed. J. Delobel. Louvain.
———. 1984. Kommentar zur Logienquelle. Stuttgart.
C. M. Tuckett
Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (5:568). New York: Doubleday.
2:
Q, a symbol (probably from the German Quelle, meaning ‘source’) designating material common to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, but not found also in the Gospel of Mark (e.g., Matt. 3:7-10; Luke 3:7-9). Scholars who favor the Two-Source Hypothesis (Mark and Q are sources for Matthew and Luke) as the solution to the Synoptic Problem also frequently use the symbol to designate the hypothetical source or sources from which this material came. The Q material consists almost entirely of Jesus’ teachings and has nothing about his birth, death, or resurrection. Q plays no role in the Griesbach Hypothesis, which affirms that Matthew was the earliest gospel. See also Synoptic Problem, The.
Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible dictionary. Includes index. (1st ed.) (846). San Francisco: Harper & Row.
3:
Q
A hypothetical collection of Jesus’ sayings that is thought to have circulated in the 1st century and used independently by the authors of Matthew and Luke. The Q hypothesis was first developed among German scholars as a component of the two-source theory in the 19th century, the solution to the Synoptic problem in which Mark is the first Gospel (and the most reliable for describing the ministry of Jesus) and Q an early source of Jesus’ sayings. The designation Q derives from German Quelle, “source.” The Q hypothesis explains (1) the remarkable verbal agreement between large blocks of Jesus’ teachings found both in Matthew and Luke but not Mark (hence Q is sometimes called the “double tradition”), (2) why the sequence of sayings in Matthew for the most part follows the relative Lukan sequence, and (3) why Matthew especially has doublet sayings (i.e., similar sayings, one adopted from Mark and one from Q). Perhaps one of the sources explicitly mentioned in Luke 1:1–4, Q contains some of the most characteristic parables and ethical teachings of Jesus, such as the Beatitudes, love of enemies, and the Lord’s Prayer. There are only two narrative stories in Q, the temptation and the healing of the centurion’s servant, but even in these passages the primary focus is Jesus’ dialogue.
Proposed Q Material (Following Luke)
3:7–9
3:16–17
4:1–13
6:20b–23
6:27–49
7:1–10
7:18–35
9:57–60
10:2–16
10:21–24
11:2–4
11:9–20
11:21–22
11:23–26
11:29–35(36)
11:39–52
12:2–12
12:22–31(32)
12:33–34
12:39–46
12:(49, )51–53
12:57–59
13:18–21
13:23–30
13:34–35
14:11 (18:14)
14:16–24
14:26–27
14:34–35
15:4–7
16:13
16:16–18
(17:1–2)
17:3–4
17:(5-)6
17:23–24
17:26–30
17:33–37
19:12–27
22:28–30
Interest in Q was revived in the late 1960s in the wake of redaction criticism and the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas in 1947. Redaction criticism’s interest in the Gospel writers’ style and theology analyzed the use of their sources, including the sayings in Q. The 114 sayings of Jesus collected under the title Gospel of Thomas, part of the Nag Hammadi library, provided an early Christian document analogous in genre to Q and bolstered claims of its existence. Several scholars have attempted to reconstruct Q’s original text by carefully analyzing the differences between Matthew’s and Luke’s readings, and then determining which of the two preserves Q’s reading and which edited Q’s reading. Recent studies have focused on Q’s own and distinct theology, particularly its concerted condemnation of “this generation” and its views on Judaism and Gentiles. Sociologically oriented studies have speculated on the community behind the document: the sayings may have been recorded by early wandering missionaries or prophets, or among the communities in or near Galilee which supported them. Q’s theology and its community are found not only in what it contained, but also in what it did not: strikingly absent are references to a eucharistic meal or Jesus’ resurrection, explicit references to the Crucifixion, church leadership, or primacy of any disciples. Whether these aspects were simply assumed, rejected, or not yet developed by the tradents of Q has been disputed. While some scholars still dispute that Q was a written document, others have speculated that Q itself contained two written layers, an early sapientially oriented collection of sayings blocks that was later supplemented with apocalyptically oriented sayings.
Since Luke follows the Markan sequence of pericope closely, many posit that Luke also follows the order of Q more closely, and hence Q passages are often cited with the Lukan versification (e.g., Q 11:2–4 for the Lord’s Prayer). Alternatively, Q passages are referred to by citing both parallel passages (e.g., Matt. 6:9–11 = Luke 11:2–4 for the Lord’s Prayer).
Bibliography. I. Havener, Q: The Sayings of Jesus. Good News Studies 19 (Wilmington, 1987); J. S. Kloppenborg, ed., The Shape of Q (Minneapolis, 1994).
Jonathan L. Reed
Freedman, D. N., Myers, A. C., & Beck, A. B. (2000). Eerdmans dictionary of the Bible (1102). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
