The Q gospel, also called the Q source or Q document, is a hypothetical collection of Jesus’s sayings that some scholars believe was used as a source by the authors of the gospels of Matthew and Luke. The name “Q” comes from the German word Quelle meaning “source.” The Q gospel is thought to have contained a collection of quotations and stories about Jesus, but no narrative framework like the gospel accounts in the New Testament.
The concept of a lost sayings gospel called Q was first proposed in 1838 by Christian Hermann Weisse. He theorized that the authors of Matthew and Luke independently used a common sayings source along with the Gospel of Mark as sources for their gospels. This theory was further developed in the early 20th century by scholars such as William Wrede and Rudolf Bultmann. Some scholars believe that Q was an actual written document, while others propose that it was an oral tradition or collection of oral traditions about Jesus.
The Q hypothesis helps explain the similarities and differences between the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, known as the Synoptic Gospels. Matthew and Luke share extensive verbatim and thematic agreements in their content that do not exist in Mark, often presented in the same order. However, they also contain divergent material not found in the other gospels. The Q theory proposes that this common material represents the content of the lost Q source, which both authors independently used along with Mark. Meanwhile, the distinct passages reflect other sources unique to each author.
While no physical copy of the Q document has ever been found, scholars have attempted to reconstruct its contents based on the common material in Matthew and Luke. This includes many well-known Jesus sayings and parables, such as the Beatitudes, Love Your Enemies, The Lord’s Prayer, The Golden Rule, and parables like The Wise and Foolish Builders and The Leaven. However, there is debate among scholars about the exact wording and scope of the Q gospel.
There is also debate about the language Q was written in. Some believe it was written in Greek, while others propose Aramaic or Hebrew as the original language. Aramaic was the primary language spoken in Judea during Jesus’s time. Proponents of an Aramaic or Hebrew Q point to semitisms – features from these languages – that appear in the shared sayings. In addition, Jesus likely taught in Aramaic or Hebrew originally, before his sayings were translated into Greek.
Scholars have offered a range of theories about the origins of Q. Some believe it came from an early Christian community such as the Jerusalem church. Others propose it originated among Jewish-Christians. There is also debate about the date when Q was composed. Estimates range from as early as the 40s CE to as late as the 60s or 70s CE. However, most scholars date Q sometime between 50 and 60 CE based on literary clues.
There are several key theories about the genre and purpose behind the Q gospel:
- A collection of Jesus’s preachings to serve as guidance for his followers.
- A record of Jesus’s divine wisdom and messianic identity.
- A book of prophecy that applied Isaiah’s promises to Jesus.
- Instructions for an itinerant group of missionaries working in Jesus’s name.
Scholars have also proposed different theories about how the Q material was transmitted before being incorporated into Matthew and Luke. Some argue that Q only existed as loose, oral traditions about Jesus that circulated in early church communities. Others believe it underwent a period of oral transmission for several decades before being compiled into a written document around 50-60 CE. There are also proposals that Q went through multiple editions and revisions as an evolving document within early Christianity.
Several objections have been raised against the Q hypothesis over the years. Some argue that the level of verbatim agreement between Matthew and Luke can be explained by one author having access to the other’s gospel, rather than relying on a lost shared source. However, this does not adequately account for the agreements in order and wording. Arguments have also been made that the Q material reconstructed by scholars is too hypothetical and does not align with a coherent document.
Additionally, some critics advocate that oral traditions or the common use of a lost passion narrative can explain the Synoptic overlaps. However, the Q theory remains the most widely accepted solution for the Synoptic Problem among contemporary scholars. The existence of Q continues to be a matter of scholarly debate and research within Biblical criticism.
If the Q source existed, it would provide invaluable insights into the earliest stage of Jesus traditions before the writing of the canonical gospels. The Q material likely circulated alongside authentic Pauline epistles like 1 Thessalonians in the 50s CE, representing some of the most primitive Christian documents. It would provide a window into Christian communities within a generation of Jesus’s death.
Some key insights the Q gospel may offer if it represents an early independent source include:
- A core collection of Jesus’s sayings that circulated orally in the earliest communities.
- Support for the authenticity of certain teachings and parables of Jesus.
- Evidence for an early developed understanding of Jesus’s divine wisdom and identity.
- The beginnings of the sayings tradition that influenced the Synoptic Gospel narratives.
The contents of Q potentially reflect the Christian oral traditions in formative decades of the early church. While we only have hypothetical Q reconstructions to reference, they provide scholars with clues into Jesus traditions independent of the gospels. The Q material also demonstrates that Jesus’s teachings were transmitted and collected very early on, before evolving into written narrative accounts of his life and ministry.
Some key sayings and passages attributed to the hypothetical Q source include:
- The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12; Luke 6:20-23)
- Love Your Enemies (Matthew 5:39b-42; Luke 6:27-29)
- The Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13; Luke 11:2-4)
- The Birds of the Air and the Lilies of the Field (Matthew 6:26-29; Luke 12:24-28)
- The Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:20-49)
- The Centurion’s Servant (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10)
- The Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31)
- The Wise and Foolish Builders (Matthew 7:24-27; Luke 6:47-49)
- The Great Supper (Matthew 22:2-10; Luke 14:16-24)
- The Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-27)
Scholars have proposed various criteria to identify which passages likely belong to Q. These include:
- The double tradition criterion – Sayings or stories shared by Matthew & Luke but absent from Mark.
- Order criterion – Parallel passages with similar wording that follow the same sequence in Matthew and Luke.
- Distinctiveness criterion– Unusual expressions or constructions that suggest a common distant source.
- Coherence criterion – Thematic or vocabulary links between otherwise unconnected double tradition passages.
- Common modification criterion – Parallel changes or alterations to a Markan passage shared uniquely by Matthew and Luke.
Applying these criteria, scholars have developed elaborate and dense reconstructions of the Q text. However, due to the hypothetical nature of Q, no single definitive reconstruction exists. Some more conservative reconstructions only include around forty highly probable passages. But expansive reconstructions exist with over two hundred reconstructed verses.
Some key scholars and works related to Q hypothesis research include:
- Christian Hermann Weisse – Proposed a ‘Die evangelische Geschichte’ (1838) theory about an Ur-Markus proto-Mark gospel used by Matthew and Luke as well as a ‘Logienquelle’ (sayings source).
- Heinrich Julius Holtzmann – Wrote ‘Die synoptischen Evangelien’ (1863) about Markan priority and a proto-Matthew ‘Logia’ sayings source.
- Burnett Hillman Streeter – The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (1924) helped establish the two-source theory with Mark & Q as sources.
- Rudolf Bultmann – History of the Synoptic Tradition (1921) analyzed and reconstructed Q material from the double tradition.
- John S. Kloppenborg – The Formation of Q (1987), an influential study of Q’s genre and composition theories.
- Christoph Heil – The Q-Hypothesis (2019), provides a recent introduction and positive reevaluation of the Q hypothesis.
The contents of the hypothetical Q source ultimately remain a scholarly reconstruction. But the Q theory provides an important framework for studying the Synoptic Gospels and the beginnings of the Jesus tradition. It represents one attempt to trace the oral teachings of Jesus back to their earliest forms and understand how they evolved into written accounts of his life and ministry in the New Testament.
Going forward, scholars continue to debate the details of reconstructing Q and whether it represents one unified source or an evolving tradition. There are challenges to agreements around Q’s precise wording, extent, genre and more. Additionally, some critics argue Q is unnecessary to explain material shared between Matthew and Luke.
Despite these debates, the majority of scholars accept some version of the Two Source Theory that posits Mark and Q as sources for the other Synoptic Gospels. This remains the predominant model in Synoptic Problem and Q theory research. While our understanding of “Q” is still somewhat hypothetical, the concept provides an important lens into the earliest Jesus traditions and literature of formative Christianity.
