Return to Revisions

Abstract

Q is an entirely theoretical document that nevertheless seems likely to have existed if Mark was the the first written Gospel.

It's long been known that Matthew, Mark, and Luke share significant material and we know from internal evidence that Luke incorporated a variety of sources:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.—Luke 1:1-4 (ESV)

What are the other narratives¹ he refers to? Matthew and Mark are obvious candidates as are Luke's unique sources for his genealogy, birth, and resurrection accounts. But as Beorn might have said, "This is the first time I've heard anyone call 3 or 4 many!"

The traditional view is that Matthew was the first written Gospel and that Mark summarized that account for easier consumption. More recently, however, scholars find the case for Markian priority stronger and therefore Matthew was an expansion of Mark. When all three synoptics share text (the triple-tradition), Luke invariably follows the Mark reading rather than the Matthew reading. This strongly suggests that Luke did not actually have access to Matthew as one of his sources.

But Luke does share material with Matthew. Many of these passages match nearly word-for-word. Consider, for instance Jesus' instruction to lay up treasure in heaven:

Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.—Luke 12:33-34 (ESV)

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.—Matthew 6:19-21 (ESV)

I've italicized the phrases that are strong parallels. Mark does not contain this saying, so Luke and Matthew could not have copied it from there. Therefore, if neither Luke nor Matthew copied from the other, they must have had a common source² for this body of shared material. Since we have no documentary evidence of such a source, we simply label it with the German word for "source": Quelle.

Austin Farrer proposed a simpler hypothesis: Luke had access to both Mark and Matthew. Under this scenario, Luke would tend to follow Mark and supplement it with material from Matthew and from his own unique sources. Easily the most attractive element of the theory is that we can dispense with the Q proposal.

But the Farrer theory does not explain why or how Matthew and Luke could present contradictory evidence on key points of the story. What was Jesus' genealogy? Who was at the tomb when the women arrived? How many demon-possessed men or blind men did Jesus heal? How did Judas die? Why does Luke provide his own birth narratives and resurrection appearances without referencing Matthew's different accounts?

Farrer responded to similar objections:

No one has ever attached decisive importance to St. Luke's unexplained neglect of certain Matthaean texts, and whatever importance it ever had derived from an antiquated view of St. Luke's attitude to his work. If we regard him as essentially a collector of Christ's sayings, then the omission of some particularly striking blossom from his anthology may seem incompatible with his having known it. But if he was not making a collection but building an edifice, then he may have omitted what he omitted because it did not seem serviceable to his architecture nor come ready to his hand in the building of it.

That is certainly true, but we must follow that line of thought to discover what sort of edifice Luke was attempting to construct. Thankfully, Luke tells us in his prologue quoted above:

It seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you.

Assuming Theophilus had both Mark and Matthew in front of him, we can easily sympathize with his confusion. If we add in a few other traditions that we may or may not have, we can further empathize. But adding in Luke seems only to make the problem worse. As a historian, we would expect him to deal with the sources available to him and reconcile (or at least acknowledge) their apparent contradictions. Certainly Luke failed to harmonize the various accounts to the satisfaction of later readers.

Therefore, I find the simplicity of rejecting Q to be counter-balanced by the complexity of explaining Luke's purpose in writing his version of events. It seems more likely that Luke had many sources, but that Matthew was not among them. In this case, Luke succeeded in harmonizing Mark, Q, and Luke's unique sources of biographical information.

_{This is sometimes translated “narrative,” but the term itself can refer to an oral or written account. It is the verb “undertaken” which suggests a written account, since it literally is “to set one’s hand” to something (BDAG 386 s.v. ἐπιχειρέω). “Narrative” is too specific, denoting a particular genre of work for the accounts that existed in the earlier tradition. Not all of that material would have been narrative.}

_{In terms of Q, this could imply that the source was oral rather than written. But most analysts find good reason to assume that Q was either written down or a product of careful rote memory.}