The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke have long been known as the Synoptic Gospels because they contain the same point of view and tell many of the same stories about Jesus. This became known as the Synoptic Problem; this has confounded scholars for centuries and has given rise to many theories.
The Synoptic Problem
There are a significant number of similar passages between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and, to a lesser extent, the Gospel of Mark. Scholars noted that in some cases there were entire verses that were virtually identical. Some of these verses were obviously taken from the gospel of Mark, which has been reliably dated to be the oldest of the gospels and thus would have been available to the authors of both Matthew and Luke.
Historical Solutions to the Synoptic Problem
Around 125 AD Christian writer Papias of Hierapolis wrote, "Matthew compiled the oracles of the Lord in a Hebrew manner of speech." Augustine of Hippo, writing in the 5th century, proposed the idea that Matthew was written first, then Mark was written, using Matthew as a source, then Luke was written using both Matthew and Mark as source material.
By the 1800’s, Mark had been reliably dated as being the oldest of the four biblical gospels, leading scholars to believe that it was the source document for Matthew and Luke. But Mark only accounted for some of the similar content. There were other parts that matched almost exactly but were not found in Mark.
This seemed to indicate that both of these gospels were compiled using another source. Scholars also speculated that this source might also have been a gospel. In 1832 Friedrich Schliermacher, put forth the theory that Papias, rather than speaking of a Hebrew translation of Matthew, was actually referring to a sayings collection that was available to authors of the biblical gospels.
The Missing Source
After an exhaustive search of primary sources, however, it became apparent that this document, if it ever existed, was now lost to modern scholars. There was no proof of its existence, only a few vague references to something that might or might not resemble this source. Nevertheless, this became an intriguing possibility that more and more scholars embraced. This lost document became known as “Q,” from the word quelle, German for “source.”
Contents of Q
Since there is, however, no mention in any scriptures, either biblical or extra-canonical, of this document, leading people to wonder if it truly existed and if it did, what in what form it was composed. Over the last century many “versions” of the Q gospel have been composed, many of which bore little resemblance to each other, with scholars arguing over what should and should not be included.
J. S. Kloppenborg, a pre-eminent Q scholar and author of Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel explains the origins of Q by using layers. The first and oldest layer of Q contained “wisdom speeches,” the Sermon on the Mount, and large portions of Luke 11, 12, and 13. The next layer includes stories of John the Baptist, the demand for signs, and the apocalypse. The third layer included the temptation story.
Other scholars, such as Mark Goodacre, argue against the existence of Q. Goodacre takes the position that no one has ever seen Q, no written evidence has ever been found describing Q, and there is enough material contained within Mark and other oral traditions to account for the similarities among the gospels.
The Future of Q Scholarship
The debate continues to rage over Q and its very existence, with many groups and biblical scholars on both sides engaging in a heated battle through books, biblical journals and other publications. Unless the elusive text is found, the truth of Q will never be known.
 |
