Biblical Studies Q
by
John S. Kloppenborg
  • LAST REVIEWED: 07 June 2019
  • LAST MODIFIED: 13 September 2010
  • DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195393361-0101

Introduction

The Sayings Gospel Q, or “Q,” is a hypothetical document posited by the dominant solution to the Synoptic Problem, the Two Document (or Two Source) Hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, Mark was used independently by Matthew and Luke as a source. Since not all of the material that Matthew and Luke have in common comes from Mark, it is necessary to posit a second source, “Q” (an abbreviation of the German Quelle, “source”). The Q material, most or all of which belonged to a single written source, comprises about 235 verses or 4500 words of text and consists mainly of sayings of John the Baptist and Jesus, with two miracles stories (the healing of the centurion’s serving boy and an exorcism) and the Temptation story. Whether the baptism of Jesus belonged to Q is debated. The significance of Q consists in its focus on Jesus’ sayings, in what it lacks, and in its special emphases. Q lacks a continuous narrative, but is instead organized topically; it lacks a Passion-resurrection narrative and birth stories (although it perhaps contains some oblique references to the death and vindication of Jesus); it has only two miracle stories and is mainly interested the sayings or controversies that these miracles occasion; and while it uses such Christological titles as “Son of Man,” “Son of God” and “the Coming One,” it does not use the term “messiah.” Q is less concerned with defending a certain Christology and more interested in characterizing the “kingdom of God” and the behavior and attitude consistent with the kingdom. Note: Q texts are normally cited by their Lucan versification. Thus, Q 6:20 is the Q text located at Luke 6:20. This does not necessarily imply that Luke preserves Q better than Matthew.

General Overviews

General overviews typically discuss the reasons for positing Q in the first place and then offer an introduction to the question of what makes Q distinctive as a document of the early Jesus movement. Many overviews are directed at general readers and undergraduates and do not presuppose either knowledge of Greek or advanced biblical studies. Havener 1987, Kloppenborg 2008, Mack 1993, and Vidal Manzanares 1993 are all suitable for undergraduates and the general reader. Schenk 1981 and Kloppenborg 2005 are appropriate for a slightly more advanced readership. Kloppenborg 2008 discusses in the greatest detail the issues of the reasons for positing Q in the first place, the principles used in the reconstruction of Q, the composition of Q, and its nature as a document of the Galilean Jesus movement. Catchpole 1993 and Kloppenborg 2000 (cited under Q as a “Gospel”) are introductions that presuppose a knowledge of Greek and are aimed at advanced undergraduates, graduate students, and researchers. Both presuppose a relatively high degree of acquaintance with the history of scholarship in Christian origins.

  • Catchpole, David R. The Quest for Q. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    The volume collects, in revised form, previously published essays that are clearly written. Catchpole defends the Q hypothesis and discusses the beginning of Q, the inaugural discourse, mission charge, and various topics (prayer, Temple, faith, and the Law).

    Find this resource:

  • Havener, Ivan. Q, the Sayings of Jesus: With a Reconstruction of Q by Athanasius Polag. Good News Studies 19. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1987.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A readable introduction, including discussions of the synoptic problem, the genre and date of Q, and its principal contents. It also contains an English translation of Athanasius Polag’s Greek reconstruction of Q.

    Find this resource:

  • Kloppenborg, John S. Q, el evangelio desconocido. Biblioteca de Estudios Bíblicos 117. Salamanca, Spain: Ediciones Sígueme, 2005.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A Spanish translation of the first five chapters of Kloppenborg 2000 (cited under Q as a “Gospel”).

    Find this resource:

  • Kloppenborg, John S. Q, the Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Sayings and Stories of Jesus. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 2008.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    An introduction to Q, discussing the components of the Two Document hypothesis; the principles for reconstructing Q; five ways in which Q differs from other expressions of the Jesus movement; and the fate of Q and its possible use by the Didache, 1 Clement, the gospel of Thomas, and the Epistle of James. It includes an English translation of the International Q Project text of Q.

    Find this resource:

  • Mack, Burton L. The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Also an introduction to Q that proposes a stratigraphy of Q, adapted from Kloppenborg 1987 (cited under Literary Structure and Composition), that distinguishes several layers, including a sapiential layer offering countercultural, cynic-like critique of Judean society; a later layer that, through the use of Deuternomistic theology, places Jesus and John the Baptist in the lineage of Hebrew prophets announcing God’s judgment; and a final stage of direct confrontation with Q’s Judean opponents and a mythologizing of Jesus as an envoy of the heavenly Sophia.

    Find this resource:

  • Schenk, Wolfgang. Synopse zur Redenquelle der Evangelien: Q-Synopse und Rekonstruktion in deutscher Übersetzung mit kurzen Erläuterungen. Dusseldorf, Germany: Patmos, 1981.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A readable introduction to Q that prints Matthew and Luke in parallel, followed by a reconstruction of Q (in German) below with brief comments.

    Find this resource:

  • Vidal Manzanares, César. El primer Evangelio: El Documento Q. Documento 325. Barcelona, Spain: Planeta, 1993.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Beginning with a description of Palestine in the first century, the author then introduces Q briefly and provides a Spanish translation of Q.

    Find this resource:

Concordances

Concordances provide a list of words, normally organized by dictionary form, occurring in a text or series of texts. The most comprehensive Greek concordance of the New Testament is Aland 1975–1983. The Hoffmann, et al. 1999–2000 concordance combines a concordance to the synoptic gospels with a synoptic display of the parallel texts, and is especially valuable for comparing word usage by the synoptic evangelists. The Critical Edition of Q (Robinson, et al. 2000, cited under Greek Reconstructions) also contains a Greek concordance of the International Q Project’s Greek text (Kloppenborg 2000) that indicates both words that appear in the “minimal” text of Q (where Matthew and Luke are in agreement) and words that appear in either Matthew or Luke and have been judged by the IQP to have belonged to Q. Edwards 1975 is now out of date.

  • Aland, Kurt, ed. Vollständige Konkordanz zum griechischen neuen Testament, unter Zugrundelegung aller modernen kritischen Textausgaben und des Textus receptus. Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung 4. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1975–1983.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Now the standard concordance to the Greek New Testament, based on the Greek text of the 26th edition of Novum testamentum graece, edited by Eberhard Nestle, Erwin Nestle, and Kurt Aland (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1979) and the third edition of The Greek New Testament, edited by Kurt Aland (London: United Bible Societies, 1975).

    Find this resource:

  • Edwards, Richard A. A Concordance to Q. Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study 7. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1975.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This Greek concordance lists all Greek words of Edward’s minimal text of Q—that is, where Matthew and Luke are in exact agreement. Consequently it does not list words that are likely in Q but which are not found in both Matthew and Luke at the same point, for example theos (God) at Q 6:20 (Luke 6:20; Matt 5:3 has ouranoi, “heavens.” This concordance is now superseded by Hoffmann, et al. 1999–2000 and Kloppenborg 2000.

    Find this resource:

  • Hoffmann, Paul, Thomas Hieke, and Ulrich Bauer. Synoptic Concordance: A Greek Concordance to the First Three Gospels in Synoptic Arrangement, Statistically Evaluated, Including Occurrences in Acts. 4 vols. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999–2000.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Lists all of the words appearing in the Synoptic gospels and Acts; analyzes the distribution of each word, and for words that appear in one synoptic passage but not in its parallels, provides a display of the number of times that word is found in Mark but not in Matthew or Luke. Also provides a synoptic comparison in three columns of the verses in which the lemma word appears, allowing the user to see how each of the synoptic authors treats the word in question.

    Find this resource:

  • Kloppenborg, John S. “Concordance of Q.” In The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis, Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark, and Thomas, with English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas. Edited by James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg, 561–583. Hermeneia Supplements. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This concordance lists all of the Greek words that appear in the International Q Project Q text. Entries are marked to indicate whether the word represents “minimal Q” (that is, that it appears in both Matthew and Luke) or whether is it found only in Luke’s or Matthew’s parallel.

    Find this resource:

Bibliographies

Two outstanding retrospective bibliographies are available, which together cover the period from 1950 up to 1998. As its title suggests, Neirynck, et al. 1998 includes literature on both Matthew and on Q. Organized by modern authors, its advantage is that it also contains an index of biblical passages discussed in the bibliography and thus allows the user to locate literature pertinent to particular passages in Q. Scholer 1989 is organized by modern author. Both are nearly exhaustive for their respective periods. While no continuing bibliography dedicated to Q alone exists, two continuing bibliographies regularly list items relevant to Q. Elenchus Bibliographicus indexes periodical literature, monographs, doctoral dissertations, and articles in anthologies, collected essays and Festschriften and is thus more comprehensive than New Testament Abstracts, which indexes only periodical literature and monographs and anthologies. While Elenchus Bibliographicus provides the exact titles and page ranges of essays published in anthologies, collected essays, and Festschriften, New Testament Abstracts only provides the volume title and a general description of the volume contents but without exact titles. However, New Testament Abstracts provides an abstract of each periodical article and is thus extremely useful for identifying whether literature is relevant to a specific project.

  • Elenchus Bibliographicus.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    An extremely thorough bibliographical instrument that recently has included a lemma on Q. Available online through subscription.

    Find this resource:

  • Neirynck, Frans, Jozef Verheyden, and R. Corstjens. The Gospel of Matthew and the Sayings Source Q: A Cumulative Bibliography, 1950–1995. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 140. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1998.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    An outstandingly thorough bibliography with an index of biblical texts discussed.

    Find this resource:

  • New Testament Abstracts.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Provides summaries of current articles and books. An online version is available to institutional subscribers on the EBSCO website.

    Find this resource:

  • Scholer, David M. “Q Bibliography.” In Society of Biblical Literature 1989 Seminar Papers. Edited by David J. Lull, 23–56. Atlanta: Scholars, 1989.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Scholer’s bibliography, produced in connection with the Society of Biblical Literature’s Q Consultation and Q Seminar, and covering 1981–1989, was updated annually in the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers for the years 1990 to 1998.

    Find this resource:

Dictionary Entries

Most recent bible dictionaries have entries on Q that briefly discuss issues relating to the synoptic problem, the construction of Q, and its general characteristics, and most offer a brief bibliographical selection. Tuckett 1992 and Kloppenborg 1999 provide an overview of the nature of Q, while Kloppenborg 2008 focuses on what Q conveys about the historical Jesus. Stanton 1992 deals more with theological issues. These are useful principally for the general reader and undergraduate. More advanced readers and researchers will want to consult the Commentaries.

  • Kloppenborg, John S. “Q (Sayings Gospel).” In Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. Edited by John H. Hayes, 343–346. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1999.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    An excellent brief overview of studies of Q, discussing the nature of Q (its existence, language, and unity), its theology, and its cultural setting.

    Find this resource:

  • Kloppenborg, John S. “Q.” In Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Craig A. Evans, 469–472. New York: Routledge, 2008.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A brief discussion of Q from the standpoint of what it might convey about the historical Jesus.

    Find this resource:

  • Stanton, Graham N. “Q.” In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight, 644–650. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A brief introduction to Q discussing the basis for positing Q and the significance of its theological contents.

    Find this resource:

  • Tuckett, Christopher M. “Q.” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 5. Edited by David Noel Freedman, 567–572. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A brief overview dealing with language and cultural setting.

    Find this resource:

The Text of Q

Establishing the text of Q requires a careful comparison of Matthew and Luke in Greek (along with a few parallel passages in Mark, the gospel of Thomas, and a few other sources), and deciding whether Matthew or Luke better represents the underlying Q text, and, additionally, whether there are grounds for concluding that material also present in Mark or special material preserved only by Matthew or Luke also derives from Q.

Greek Reconstructions

Several Greek reconstructions are available, the most comprehensive of which is the Critical Edition of Q (Robinson, et al. 2000). Three important “private” reconstructions of Q are available, with varying degrees of annotation and commentary, from Harnack 1907, which is accompanied by the author’s commentary justifying his reconstruction; to Polag 1979, which notes in the apparatus agreements and disagreements with almost fifty other scholars; to Vassiliadis 1999, which has no apparatus.

  • Harnack, Adolf von. Sprüche und Reden Jesu: Die zweite Quelle des Matthäus und Lukas. Leipzig, Germany: J. C. Hinrichs, 1907.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    First reconstructs the Greek text of Q, then discusses its grammatical features and content, the original order of Q, its relation to Mark, and its relationship to Jesus. Harnack declared that Q was written without any detectable bias and therefore was the best available representation of the historical Jesus. An English translation appeared as The Sayings of Jesus: The Second Source of St. Matthew and St. Luke, translated by John R. Wilkinson (London: Williams and Norgate; New York: G. P. Putnam, 1908).

    Find this resource:

  • Polag, Athanasius, ed. Fragmenta Q: Texth. zur Logienquelle. Neukirchen-Vluyn, West Germany: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A reconstruction of Q with an apparatus recording the differing choices in reconstruction by a selection of nearly fifty scholars. Available in English as “The Text of Q,” in Q: The Sayings of Jesus, edited and translated by Ivan Havener (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1987).

    Find this resource:

  • Robinson, James M., Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg, eds. The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis, Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas, with English, German and French Translations of Q and Thomas. Hermeneia Supplements. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A collaborative reconstruction of the Greek text of Q, with English, French, and German translations, published by the International Q Project, a group of two dozen scholars from Canada, the United States, Germany, Belgium, the United Kingdom, South Africa, and Finland. With an introduction and concordance of the Greek text. Each decision concerning the reconstruction of Q is graded as to its degree of certainty, and the gradings are displayed in the text.

    Find this resource:

  • Vassiliadis, Petros. “The Q Text.” In Logoi Iēsou: Studies in Q. By Petros Vassiliadis, 85–116. University of South Florida International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 8. Atlanta: Scholars, 1999.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Vassiliadis’s reconstruction of Q, with no apparatus or commentary.

    Find this resource:

Modern Language Translations

Modern language translations are intended mainly for general readers and undergraduates. The International Q Project published two shorter editions (Robinson, et al. 2001, Robinson, et al. 2002), with a Greek text and either English or Spanish translations, and two of the International Q Project collaborators published a Greek-German edition of the International Q Project Q text (Hoffmann and Heil 2009). Amsler 2001 is a French translation of the International Q Project Q text.

  • Amsler, Frédéric. L’Évangile inconnu: La source des paroles de Jésus (Q). Essais Bibliques 30. Geneva, Switzerland: Labor et Fides, 2001.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A French translation of the International Q Project Greek text with an introduction by Amsler.

    Find this resource:

  • Hoffmann, Paul, and Christoph Heil, eds. Die Spruchquelle Q: Studienausgabe, Griechisch und Deutsch. 3d ed. Darmstadt, Germany: Wissenschaftliche, 2009.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    An edition for students of the reconstruction of Q. Provides synoptic comparison of Greek and German versions, and gives an introduction to the history of Q research.

    Find this resource:

  • Robinson, James M., Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg, eds. The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English: With Parallels from the Gospels of Mark and Thomas. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 30. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2001.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Documents the history of Q research.

    Find this resource:

  • Robinson, James M., Paul Hoffmann, and John S. Kloppenborg, eds. El Documento Q en griego y en español con paralelos del evangelio de Marcos y del evangelio de Tomás. Biblioteca de Estudios Bíblicos 107. Salamanca, Spain: Ediciones Sígueme, 2002.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A Spanish-language version of Robinson, et al. 2001.

    Find this resource:

Synopses of Q Texts

Three synopses—Kloppenborg 1988, Neirynck 1988, and Neirynck 2001—were constructed to aid in the reconstruction of the Greek text of Q. The latter two do not reconstruct Q but print the synoptic parallels from which a reconstruction can be made. Each uses a combination of bold and normal fonts to signal where Matthew and Luke are in verbatim agreement and where they disagree. Both are intended as tools to assist in the reconstruction of Q. Neirynck 2001 is useful both for seeing the “minimal text” of Q and for seeing the differences between the preliminary text of the Society of Biblical Literature’s Q Seminar and the final text of the Critical Edition (Robinson, et al. 2000, cited under Greek Reconstructions).

  • Kloppenborg, John S. Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes, and Concordance. Foundations and Facets Reference Series. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1988.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A synopsis of Matthew and Luke, with relevant parallel texts from Mark and Thomas, and a few texts attested only in Matthew or Luke that are regularly proposed for inclusion in Q. Each lemma has an apparatus tabulating a selection of scholarly opinion on the reconstruction of Q, and the book concludes with a concordance of Greek words and vocabularic statistics.

    Find this resource:

  • Neirynck, Frans. Q-Synopsis: The Double Tradition Passages in Greek. Studiorum Novi Testamenti Auxilia 13. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1988.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Prints the Greek texts of Matthew and Luke on facing pages; words and phrases in which Matthew and Luke agree are marked in bold, making it easy for the user to see immediately the “minimal text of Q,” that is, those texts, words and phrases that must be included in Q irrespective of what else might have been in Q. Includes only pericope where both Matthew and Luke have parallels, thus omitting Matthaean or Lucan special material that some scholars have proposed for inclusion in Q.

    Find this resource:

  • Neirynck, Frans. Q Parallels: Q Synopsis and IQP/CritEd Parallels. Studiorum Novi Testamenti Auxilia 20. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 2001.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Includes the entire text of Neirynck 1988, followed by two versions of the text of Q on facing pages, the left-hand page printing the preliminary International Q Project text published in issues of the Journal of Biblical Literature and the right-hand page printing the text of the Critical Edition of Q (Robinson, et al. 2000, cited under Greek Reconstructions).

    Find this resource:

Databases for the Reconstructions of Q

The International Q Project continues to publish a series of databases containing all reconstructions of Q since 1838. The database, Documenta Q, is organized by Q verse and variant unit. For each variant unit literature is organized under these headings: Matthew = Q Pro; Matthew = Q Con; Luke = Q Pro; Luke = Q Con; and Undecided = Q. Each lemma concludes with a proposed reconstruction and comments of the general editors. Because the database is extremely large, it has been broken into discrete volumes, each covering a selection of Q texts. Eight volumes, by members of the International Q Project, have been published so far.

  • Robinson, James M., Paul Hoffmann, Christoph Heil, Joseph Verheyden, and John S. Kloppenborg, eds. Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q through Two Centuries of Gospel Research, Excerpted, Sorted, and Evaluated. 31+ vols. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 1996–.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Individual volumes include Shawn Carruth and Albrecht Garsky, Q 11:2b–4 (1996); Shawn Carruth and James M. Robinson, Q 4:1–13, 16: The Temptations of Jesus Nazara (1996); Shawn Carruth, ed., Q 12:49–59: Children against Parents; Judging the Time; Settling out of Court (1997); Christoph Heil, ed., Q 12:8–12: Confessing or Denying; Speaking against the Holy Spirit; Hearing before Synagogues (1997); Paul Hoffmann, Stefan H. Brandenburger, Ulrike Brauner, and Thomas Hieke, Q 22:28, 30: You Will Judge the Twelve Tribes of Israel (1998); Thomas Hieke, Q 6:20–21: The Beatitudes for the Poor, Hungry, and Mourning (2001); Steven R. Johnson, Q 7:1–10: The Centurion’s Faith in Jesus’ Word (2002); Steven R. Johnson, Q 12:33–34: Storing up Treasures in Heaven (2007).

    Find this resource:

Commentaries

Like commentaries on books of the Bible, commentaries on Q treat the text in its presumed original order, or by following the order of Q texts as they are presented by either Matthew or Luke. Although Q was not much commented upon during the first half of the 20th century, the early commentaries of Schmid and Manson are still valuable. Unlike the authors of commentaries published in the 1970s and later, Schmid and Manson were mainly interested in reconstructing the text of Q with a view to understanding the development and shape of early traditions about the historical Jesus (Manson 1949) or in order to understand the appropriation of Q by the later evangelists Matthew and Luke (Schmid 1930). Commentaries written in the 1970s and later are more interested in describing Q in its literary and conceptual integrity rather than only in relation to the historical Jesus or its use by the evangelists. Each of these commentaries advances the analysis of Q in different ways: Schulz 1972 distinguishes two layers in Q; Zeller 1984 is concerned with both the coherence of Q and with aspects of its composition; Fleddermann 2005 strongly argues for Q’s literary unity but also for the dependence of Mark upon Q; and Valantasis 2005 is concerned with the ways in which Q constructs an alternate symbolic universe.

  • Fleddermann, Harry T. Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary. Biblical Tools and Studies 1. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2005.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Offers a new reconstruction of Q (in Greek) and a commentary, arguing (a) that Q is a literary unity, (b) that it is Gentile-Christian in provenance, and, most importantly, (c) that since (the author claims) the gospels of John and Thomas depend on the synoptics and that Mark depends on Q, Q stands at the very beginning of the Jesus tradition. Moreover, since one cannot disembed sayings from their contexts in Q, it is impossible to reconstruct the “original” context for the historical Jesus.

    Find this resource:

  • Manson, T. W. The Sayings of Jesus: As Recorded in the Gospels According to St. Matthew and St. Luke. London: SCM, 1949.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Originally published as pp. 299–639 of The Mission and Message of Jesus: An Exposition of the Gospels in the Light of Modern Research, by H. D. A. Major, T. W. Manson, and C. J. Wright (London: Ivor Nicholson and Watson, 1937), Manson republished this as a separate volume. He also included a discussion of the so-called M and L sources, and provided brief remarks on the reconstruction of Q and comments on the interpretation of each pericope.

    Find this resource:

  • Schmid, Josef. Matthäus und Lukas: Eine Untersuchung des Verhältnisses ihrer Evangelien. Biblische Studien 23. Freiburg, Germany: Herder, 1930.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Although this volume never mentions Q (because of the Vatican’s 1910 suppression of critical work on Q), Schmid’s analysis of the relation of Matthew and Luke to their common source still stands as a landmark work on Q.

    Find this resource:

  • Schulz, Siegfried. Q: Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten. Zurich, Switzerland: Theologischer Verlag, 1972.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    For each pericope in Q, Schulz offers a detailed discussion of the reconstruction of the Q text followed by interpretive comments. He divides Q into two strata, a later “Hellenistic-Jewish” stratum produced in Syria, accounting for about three-quarters of Q, overlayed by a “Palestinian Jewish-Christian” layer characterized by apocalyptic enthusiasm.

    Find this resource:

  • Valantasis, Richard. The New Q: A Fresh Translation with Commentary. New York: T & T Clark, 2005.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Offering a colloquial translation of the International Q Project text of Q, Valantasis focuses on the “voice of Jesus” presented by Q—the way that the Q sayings are intended to engender a new subjectivity in the hearer, new social relationships, and an alternative symbolic universe, which Valantasis calls “ascetical transformation.”

    Find this resource:

  • Zeller, Dieter. Kommentar zur Logienquelle. Stuttgarter Kleiner Kommentar, Neues Testament 21. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1984.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A reconstruction in German and brief comments.

    Find this resource:

Surveys of Scholarship

There are no recent comprehensive surveys of scholarship on Q that treat most or all aspects of contemporary scholarship. Neirynck 1991 discusses some of the basic issues of Q and the synoptic problem and reconstructions of Q, while Kloppenborg 1996 focuses exclusively on compositional theories.

  • Kloppenborg, John S. “The Sayings Gospel Q: Literary and Stratigraphic Problems.” In Symbols and Strata: Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 65. Edited by Risto Uro, 1–66. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1996.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    The essay discusses the compositional theories of Schmithals, Schenk, Schulz, Polag, Jacobson, Kloppenborg, Sato, and Zeller, concluding with a comparative table.

    Find this resource:

  • Neirynck, Frans. “Recent Developments in the Study of Q.” Evangelica II: 1982–1991 Collected Essays. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 99. By Frans Neirynck, 409–464. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1991.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Reprinted, with an additional note and bibliographical updates, from Delobel 1982, 29–75 (cited under Collected Essays), this contains characteristically careful and balanced discussions of Q and the synoptic problem, reconstructions of Q, Mark and Q, and the redaction and composition of Q.

    Find this resource:

Collected Essays

While many volumes of collected essays include essays on Q, the volumes listed here are dedicated to Q. Delobel 1982 presents key essays on a large variety of topics bearing on Q and individual Q texts. Dettwiler and Marguerat 2008 focuses on Q and Christian origins and is one of the very few publications on Q in French. Horsley 2006 is an important set of studies applying models from peasant studies and oral tradition studies to Q. Kloppenborg 1994 collects classic essays on the composition of Q. Kloppenborg and Vaage 1992 collects essays that focus on the role of Q in reshaping our imagination of Christian origins as a whole. Lindemann 2001 focuses on the impact of Q studies on the quest of the historical Jesus. Piper 1995 includes outstanding essays on a variety of topics relating to Q. Robinson 2005 is a collection of his many essays on Q.

  • Delobel, Joël, ed. Logia: Les paroles de Jésus/The Sayings of Jesus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 59. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1982.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Proceedings of the 1981 Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense. Papers on a wide range of topics having to do with Q.

    Find this resource:

  • Dettwiler, Andreas, and Daniel Marguerat, eds. La source des paroles de Jésus (Q): Aux origines du christianisme. Geneva, Switzerland: Labor et Fides, 2008.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    The proceedings of a seminar in 2006 sponsored by the faculties of the Universities of Geneva and Lausanne. Pages 321–344 are a French translation of the International Q Project Q text.

    Find this resource:

  • Horsley, Richard A., ed. Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q. Semeia Studies 60. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Essays informed by recent studies of orality and applying James C. Scott’s model of peasant resistance in agrarian societies to Q.

    Find this resource:

  • Kloppenborg, John S., ed. The Shape of Q: Signal Essays on the Sayings Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Key essays dealing with the composition of Q, from Rudolf Bultmann’s first and only essay on Q (1913) to Migako Sato’s chapter on the shape of Q. The German essays are given in English translation.

    Find this resource:

  • Kloppenborg, John S., and Leif E. Vaage, eds. Early Christianity, Q and Jesus. Semeia 55. Atlanta: Scholars, 1992.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Essays focusing on the social setting of Q, Q and Christian Origins, and Q and the historical Jesus.

    Find this resource:

  • Lindemann, A., ed. The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 158. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 2001.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Proceedings of the 2000 Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense, most with a focus on Q and the historical Jesus.

    Find this resource:

  • Piper, Ronald A., ed. The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 75. Leiden, The Netherlands, and New York: Brill, 1995.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Essays on Q from both North American and European scholars on various topics.

    Find this resource:

  • Robinson, James M. The Sayings Gospel Q: Collected Essays. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 189. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2005.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Collected essays of one of the most prolific and influential scholars on Q.

    Find this resource:

Critical Problems in the Study of Q

Because Q is a reconstructed document and because its precise contours are not known, many issues beyond those normally discussed in relation to other early Christian literature (e.g., date and provenance) form part of the repertoire of Q scholarship. Critical discussions concern whether Q was oral or written, and what its relationship to oral Jesus traditions, its original language, composition, and original extent were. Several questions arise from Q’s peculiarities: whether it was composed as a “gospel” or merely a convenient collection of Jesus’ sayings, what Q’s relationship to Judaism and other movements in Jewish Palestine was, and what the significance of Q’s lack of attention to the death and postmortem vindication of Jesus is.

Oral or Written?

Because we have no direct access to Q (as it must be reconstruction from Matthew and Luke), doubts have arisen as to whether Q might be entirely oral (Jeremias 1930), or partly oral (Dunn 2005, Mournet 2005). The key data bearing on this issue are the fact that Matthew and Luke often place Q materials in different relative sequences, and that they sometimes differ considerably in the wording of a Q text. This leads to the methodological question of whether one attributes such disagreements to the vagaries and variability of oral tradition (Jeremias 1930, Dunn 2005, Mournet 2005) or to editorial practices that allow for an author sometimes copying his sources nearly verbatim and at other times paraphrasing and adapting them (Kloppenborg 2007).

  • Dunn, James D. G. “Q1 as Oral Tradition.” In The Written Gospel. Edited by Markus Bockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner, 45–69. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

    DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511614729Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Assuming that authors are consistent in their copying of their sources, Dunn argues that while some portions of Q material must come from a written document, those portions where Matthew and Luke show less verbatim agreement may come from oral tradition.

    Find this resource:

  • Jeremias, Joachim. “Zur Hypothese einer schriftlichen Logienquelle Q.” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 29 (1930): 147–149.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    An ultimately unconvincing argument for an oral Q based on the presence of catchwords that connect sayings differently in Matthew and Luke’s deployment of Q materials.

    Find this resource:

  • Kloppenborg, John S. “Variation in the Reproduction of the Double Tradition and an Oral Q?” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniense 83.1 (2007): 49–79.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Against Dunn and Mournet, Kloppenborg points out that ancient authors for whom we also have access to their sources do not display a consistent level of verbal agreement with their sources. Hence, Dunn and Mournet’s premise is false and their conclusion is unsupported.

    Find this resource:

  • Mournet, Terence C. Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency: Variability and Stability in the Synoptic Tradition and Q. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2d ser., 195. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A full analysis of pericopes in Matthew and Luke, which supposedly come from Q, arguing in each case whether the degree of verbatim agreement merits their being included in a written document. Luke Dunn, Mournet assumes that Matthew and Luke are consistent in their copying of their sources (a false assumption, according to Kloppenborg 2007), so that only medium- and high-agreement passages can be ascribed to a written Q. Lower-agreement passages should be ascribed to independent use of oral tradition.

    Find this resource:

Orality and Q

Because literacy rates in the ancient world were very low (10 percent at most), most people knew what they knew only through the spoken word. Literary documents, moreover, were generally known only through their oral performance. This topic, still underrepresented in scholarly literature aside from Horsley and Draper 1999, concerns in general the relationship between oral transmission, performance, and written texts in premodern cultures where literacy is low.

  • Horsley, Richard A., and Jonathan A. Draper. Whoever Hears You Hears Me: Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1999.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    An attempt to treat Q in the context of the oralized communication environment of antiquity. At times the volume employs an unhelpful caricature of scribalism, but nonetheless makes important points about orality.

    Find this resource:

Aramaic or Greek?

It is usually assumed that Jesus spoke Aramaic and that most of his sayings were originally spoken in Aramaic. Yet all of our documents of the Jesus tradition are in Greek (or texts translated from Greek). Although there is little question that the synoptic gospels, John, Acts, the letters of Paul, and other portions of the New Testament were originally composed in Greek, the possibility that Q was composed in Aramaic has been debated for more than a century. Although this possibility is usually rejected in favor of composition in Greek (Turner 1968–1969) it still finds defenders who argue that the whole of Q was penned in Aramaic, or that parts were translated from Aramaic (Casey 2002).

  • Casey, Maurice. An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 122. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    While most scholars have now concluded that Q was written in Greek, Casey argues that Q is not a unity, but includes some materials penned in Greek and others in Aramaic, which Matthew and Luke rendered differently.

    Find this resource:

  • Turner, Nigel. “Q in Recent Thought.” Expository Times 80 (1968–1969): 324–328.

    DOI: 10.1177/001452466908001103Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Turner, while acknowledging the presence of Aramaisms in Q, nonetheless argues that none of the linguistic features of Q demands a translation hypothesis (that is, that it was translated from Aramaic into Greek).

    Find this resource:

Date and Purpose

Dating Q is problematic because it contains few references to datable events such as the destruction of the temple. If it could be shown definitively that Mark knew Q, Q would have to be dated at least a few years prior to Mark (whose dating, however, is also not secure). Conjectures about dating range from the 40s CE (Theissen 1991) to sometime before 50 CE (Lake 1909) to a date following the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE (Myllykoski 1996).

  • Lake, Kirsopp. “The Date of Q.” Expositor, 7th ser., 7 (1909): 494–507.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    The absence of Passion and resurrection narratives and the paucity of sayings about Jesus’ own fate suggest a date prior to the time when believers felt it necessary to reflect on the personal significance of the resurrection for themselves. Lake suggests that after 50 CE the silence of Q would be increasingly difficult to imagine.

    Find this resource:

  • Myllykoski, Matti. “The Social History of Q and the Jewish War.” In Symbols and Strata: Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 65. Edited by Risto Uro, 143–199. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1996.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Myllykoski, responding to Theissen 1991, argues that Q’s peculiar combination of warnings against false prophets and Q 17’s depiction of the time of judgment as a time of utter normalcy recommend a date after the first revolt. He argues that Q 11:49–51 and 13:34–35 presuppose the destruction of the temple.

    Find this resource:

  • Theissen, Gerd. The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Theissen argues that Q’s temptation story, which involves a proskynesis (prostration before a ruler), the power to bestow kingdoms, and a direct affront to God’s sovereignty, are all elements of the Caligula crisis of 41 CE. This, when coupled with Q’s conservative attitude toward the Torah and the expectation that the twelve disciples will judge Israel suggests a date close to 41 CE.

    Find this resource:

The Limits of Reconstruction

Discussion of the reconstruction of Q has focused on several topics: (a) the principles for reconstructing Q from Matthew and Luke, (b) whether material unique to Matthew or Luke ought to be considered as belonging to Q (Vassiliadis 1978), and (c) the degree to which any reconstruction of Q can be trusted (Eve 2004, Wolter 2004).

  • Eve, Eric. “Reconstructing Mark: A Thought Experiment.” In Questioning Q: A Multidimensional Critique. Edited by Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin, 89–114. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    An “experiment” that tries to reconstruct Mark on the assumption that Matthew, Luke and Q are extant. Eve effectively shows that while “reconstructed Mark” would not contain anything that Mark did not include, it would lack some parts of canonical Mark.

    Find this resource:

  • Vassiliadis, Petros. “The Nature and Extent of the Q-Document.” Novum Testamentum 20 (1978): 49–73.

    DOI: 10.1163/156853678X00038Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Still one of the clearest articulations of principles for the reconstruction of Q; reprinted in the author’s book Logoi Iēsou: Studies in Q (Atlanta: Scholars, 1999), pp. 39–59.

    Find this resource:

  • Wolter, Michael. “Reconstructing Q?” Expository Times 115.4 (2004): 115–119.

    DOI: 10.1177/001452460411500402Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A skeptical response to efforts to estimate the original extent of Q and to reconstruct its wording and theology.

    Find this resource:

Literary Structure and Composition

One of the major debates in the study of Q concerns whether it is a compositional unity or is comprised of discernible strata or compositional components. (For a survey, see Surveys of Scholarship.) Compositional models fall into several types. Lührmann 1969 and Kirk 1998 propose a single editorial process that brought together the Q materials (although both acknowledge the existence of smaller subcollections). Sato 1988 conceives of the composition of Q consisting of the combining of several larger subcollections with some final editing to complete the collection, while Jacobson 1992, Kloppenborg 1987, and Allison 1997 employ stratigraphical models according to which it is possible to separate editorial “layers” in Q.

  • Allison, Dale C., Jr. The Jesus Tradition in Q. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1997.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Allison proposes three strata: an early collection addressed to itinerant missionaries (Q1), supplemented by Q 12:33–22:30 (Q2), and finally supplemented by 3:7–7:35 and 11:14–52 (Q3).

    Find this resource:

  • Jacobson, Arland D. The First Gospel: An Introduction to Q. Foundations and Facets Reference Series. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1992.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Jacobson proposes three stages in the composition of Q: a layer composed under the influence of Deuteronomistic theology, a second redactional phrase characterized by the motifs of secret revelation and enthusiasm and an interest in the miraculous, and the final addition of the temptation story, interpreted in an antienthusiastic manner.

    Find this resource:

  • Kirk, Alan. The Composition of the Sayings Source: Genre, Synchrony, and Wisdom Redaction in Q. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 91. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1998.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    An ambitious attempt to comprehend all of the Q material as a single sapiential redaction.

    Find this resource:

  • Kloppenborg, John S. The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections. Studies in Antiquity and Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Kloppenborg proposes two main redactional strata, an instruction layer (Q1) and an overlay of polemical sayings announcing judgment (Q2). A few glosses displaying a nomocentric redaction comprise Q3.

    Find this resource:

  • Lührmann, Dieter. Die Redaktion der Logienquelle. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 33. Neukirchen-Vluyn, West Germany: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    An early and influential study that argues that the announcement of judgment was the redactional motif that held together earlier diverse materials. Chapter 4 is reprinted in English translation as “Q in the History of Early Christianity” (pp. 59–73) in Kloppenborg 1994 (cited under Collected Essays).

    Find this resource:

  • Sato, Migaku. Q und Prophetie: Studien zur Gattungs- und Traditionsgeschichte der Quelle Q. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2d ser., 29. Tübingen, West Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1988.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Sato distinguishes three “redactions”: Redaction “A” (Q 3:2–7:28, but excluding 4:1–13); Redaction “B” (Q 9:57–10:24, excluding 10:12, 13–15); and Redaction “C” (7:31–35; 10:12–15; 11:14–32, 39–52; 13:23–35;17:23–37), which brought together “A” and “B.” He treats the remainder of Q as either late additions or as material that should not be assigned to Q. Chapter 1 is reprinted in English translation as “The Shape of the Q-Source” (pp. 156–179) in Kloppenborg 1994 (cited under Collected Essays).

    Find this resource:

Q as a “Gospel”

Koester 1968 treats Q as exemplifying one primitive gospel form. More recently Q has been called a “sayings gospel” or “wisdom gospel.” These designations have attracted both advocates (Kloppenborg 2000) and detractors (Neirynck 1995).

  • Kloppenborg, John S. Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    The term “gospel” is defensible on three bases: (1) Q, like other gospels, makes a coherent theological claim about the significance of Jesus and his preaching; (2) Q employs the term kerygma and the verb euaggelizesthai (a cognate of euaggelion, “gospel”) in describing its own content; and (3) Q’s narrativizing trajectory places it in formal and material continuity with the later narrative gospels. See pp. 398–408.

    Find this resource:

  • Koester, Helmut H. “One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels.” Harvard Theological Review 61 (1968): 203–247.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Without expressly calling Q a “gospel,” Koester described four gospel types: (1) collections of sayings (of which Q is one), (2) aretalogies (collections of wonder stories), (3) revelation discourses, and (4) the canonical gospel form with its historicizing tendency. Reprinted in Trajectories through Early Christianity by James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), pp. 158–204.

    Find this resource:

  • Neirynck, Frans. “Q: From Source to Gospel.” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniense 71 (1995): 421–430.

    DOI: 10.2143/ETL.71.4.504871Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Neirynck acknowledges the reasons for calling Q a gospel but nonetheless prefers calling it “Saying Source Q” to recognize “the fact that we have no direct access to the text of Q: it remains a hypothetical source text.”

    Find this resource:

Q and Jewish Identity

Of all extant or hypothetical documents of the Jesus movement, Q and the letter of James have the best claim to represent forms of the Jesus movement that existed entirely within the limits of second-temple Judaism. In the case of Q, it is likely that the document was created and circulated in Jewish Palestine. This possibility has invited explorations of the place of Q within the range of ways of constructing Judean identity, a topic explored by Cromhout 2007.

  • Cromhout, Markus. Jesus and Identity: Reconstructing Judean Ethnicity in Q. Matrix: The Bible in Mediterranean Context 2. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2007.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A methodologically and theoretically sophisticated study of ethnicity, arguing that Q both manifests a form of Jewishness that is in significant continuity with other contemporary forms of Judaism, but departs from traditional covenantal nomism.

    Find this resource:

The Death and Vindication of Jesus in Q

A longstanding problem in the study of Q has to do with its apparent lack of Passion and resurrection accounts, and any clear or direct allusions to Jesus’ death and postmortem deliverance. While earlier scholarship treated these lacunae as reflecting the function of Q as a moralizing supplement to the Easter proclamation, more recent scholarship rejects this view of the function of Q and has sought other ways to account for the absence of mention of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Kirk 2005 agrees that Q is not a supplement to the Easter proclamation, and employs collective-memory theory to suggest that the very existence of Q implies a memorialization of Jesus’ fate. Seeley 1992 instead aligns the Q sayings that were likely read as relating to Jesus’ death with Cynic and Stoic representations of the fate of a sage. While Q clearly understands the metaphor of resurrection (Q 11:31–32), it curiously does not apply this metaphor to Jesus’ vindication. Instead, as Smith 2007 argues, Q imagines Jesus’ vindication as assumption rather than as resurrection.

  • Kirk, Alan. “The Memory of Violence and the Death of Jesus in Q.” In Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity. Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies 52. Edited by Alan Kirk and Tom Thatcher, 191–206. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Employing theories of collective memory, Kirk argues that, far from relegating Jesus’ death to a level of secondary significance, the production of Q as a “commemorative artifact” and its aligning of Jesus’ death with the fates of the prophets constitute efforts to reverse the moral and social significance of Jesus’ status-degrading death.

    Find this resource:

  • Seeley, David. “Jesus’ Death in Q.” New Testament Studies 38.2 (1992): 222–234.

    DOI: 10.1017/S0028688500019871Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Seeley argues that Q 14:27 (on carrying one’s cross), which must have been read in connection with Jesus’ death, reflects the Cynic or Stoic view of the relation of the teacher’s fate to that of his disciples. This suggests that Q conceived of Jesus’ death on the model of a Cynic-Stoic sage. Available online.

    Find this resource:

  • Smith, Daniel A. The Post-mortem Vindication of Jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q. Library of New Testament Studies 338. London and New York: T & T Clark, 2007.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Smith develops the thesis that instead of imagining Jesus’ vindication on the model of death-resurrection in Daniel 7, Q 13:34–35 draws on the notion of the assumption of the righteous, known both from Jewish texts (Elijah, Enoch) and Greco-Roman texts.

    Find this resource:

Q and Judean Wisdom

The affinities of Q with Judean wisdom has long been recognized. Robinson 1971 treats Q as an instance of logoi sophon, words of the sages; Küchler 1979 includes Q in its survey of Judean wisdom books. Piper 1989 and Zeller 1977 identify sapiential elements and conventions in some of the subcollections of Q. Goff 2005 explores the relationship between sapiential and apocalyptic configurations in second-temple Judaism, focusing on sapiential texts from Qumran and Q.

  • Goff, Matthew J. “Discerning Trajectories: 4QInstruction and the Sapiential Background of the Sayings Source Q.” Journal of Biblical Literature 124.4 (2005): 657–673.

    DOI: 10.2307/30041063Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Goff argues that both Q and 4QInstruction (from Qumran) are wisdom texts that embody apocalyptic elements and fit well within the trajectory of Judean wisdom.

    Find this resource:

  • Küchler, Max. Frühjüdische Weisheitstraditionen: Zum Fortgang weisheitlichen Denkens im Bereich des frühjüdischen Jahweglaubens. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 26. Freiburg, Switzerland: Universitätsverlag, 1979.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    An excellent survey and analysis of wisdom texts from second-temple Judaism and early Christianity.

    Find this resource:

  • Piper, Ronald A. Wisdom in the Q-Tradition: The Aphoristic Teaching of Jesus. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 61. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    An outstanding study of the composition of several sapiential clusters within Q.

    Find this resource:

  • Robinson, James M. “LOGOI SOPHON: On the Gattung of Q.” In Trajectories through Early Christianity. Edited by James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester, 71–113. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Robinson’s programmatic study located Q on a “trajectory” of wisdom texts that extend from Proverbs 22–24 to M. ʾAbot and the gospel of Thomas.

    Find this resource:

  • Zeller, Dieter. Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche bei den Synoptikern. Forschung zur Bibel 17. Würzburg, West Germany: Echter, 1977.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Zeller examines the construction of sapiential admonitions and posits six or possibly seven “sayings complexes” of sapiential materials in Q.

    Find this resource:

Q and Cynicism

This is a topic that has sparked some of the most heated discussion about Q in the past two decades. Both formal and conceptual affinities between Q and Cynicism have long been observed. Downing 1988 has exhaustively documented parallels of a literary and formal nature and suggests that the genre of Q resembled that of Cynic lives (bioi). Mack 1997 and Vaage 1994 extend this argument to urge that the contents of the formative stratum of Q should be understood as “cynic-like.” This provoked a debate often characterized by extreme caricature, outright misrepresentation, and glaringly fallacious arguments (documented by Kloppenborg 1999), but also more reasoned and moderate evaluations of the “cynic hypothesis” by Tuckett 1989 and Robinson 1997.

  • Downing, F. Gerald. "Quite Like Q: A Genre for ‘Q’ The ‘Lives’ of Cynic Philosophers". Biblica 69 (1988): 196–225.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Downing proposes Cynic analogies for the form of Q’s material and for some of its content.

    Find this resource:

  • Kloppenborg, John S. “A Dog among the Pigeons: The ‘Cynic Hypothesis’ as a Theological Problem.” In From Quest to Q: Festschrift James M. Robinson. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 146. Edited by Jón Magnús Ásgeirsson, Kristin de Troyer, and Marvin W. Meyer, 73–117. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 1999.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Kloppenborg’s essay discusses the arguments made for and against the “cynic hypothesis” and suggests that apologetic and theological concerns are exposed in the debate.

    Find this resource:

  • Mack, Burton L. “Q and a Cynic-Like Jesus.” In Whose Historical Jesus? Edited by William E. Arnal and Michel Desjardins, 25–36. Studies in Christianity and Judaism/Études sur le Christianisme et le Judaïsme 7. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1997.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Mack argues that the formative layers of Q were cynic-like in content.

    Find this resource:

  • Robinson, James M. “Galilean Upstarts: A Sot’s Cynical Disciples?” In Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-Canonical; Collected Essays in Honour of Tjitze Baarda. Edited by William L. Petersen, Johan S. Vos, and Henk J. de Jonge, 223–249. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 66. Leiden, The Netherlands, and New: Brill, 1997.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Robinson responds to Mack 1997 and Vaage 1994, arguing that their appeal to Q1 as “cynic” cannot be carried through consistently and rests on an arbitrary assignment of Q materials to its formative stratum.

    Find this resource:

  • Tuckett, Christopher M. “A Cynic Q?” Biblica 70.3 (1989): 349–376.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A skeptical reply to Downing 1988.

    Find this resource:

  • Vaage, Leif E. Galilean Upstarts: Jesus’ First Followers according to Q. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1994.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Vaage argues that the formative layers of Q were cynic-like in content.

    Find this resource:

The Social World of Q

Assessing the social level of the producers and purveyors of Q has proven a controversial topic of discussion. It presupposes a construction of the social and economic situation of Jewish Palestine and the degree to which Judeans were (explicitly or implicitly) engaged in acts of resistance against Rome or to the pressures typical of peasant economics (Oakman 2008). Theissen 1978 locates Q materials in a construct of radical itinerant preachers and their sedentary supporters, a model criticized by Arnal 2001, which locates Q’s production among village scribes concerned with social and economic pressures on the Galilean population. Koester’s approach is less concerned with the social and economic realities of the Galilee, and instead suggests that Q’s social context be constructed by relating it to social practices reflected in the Didache (Koester 2003).

  • Arnal, William E. Jesus and the Village Scribes: Galilean Conflicts and the Setting of Q. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    As the title suggests, Arnal argues that Q’s production should be located in the scribal class of Galilean villages, under pressure from monetization, urbanization, and other social pressures.

    Find this resource:

  • Horsley, Richard A. “Moral Economy, Little Tradition, and the Hidden Transcript: Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Q.” In Oral Performance, Popular Tradition, and Hidden Transcript in Q. Edited by Richard A. Horsley, 143–157. Semeia Studies 60. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Q represents a “hidden transcript” that has emerged into the open as a declaration of the coming of the kingdom and the condemnation of Judean rulers.

    Find this resource:

  • Koester, Helmut. “The Synoptic Sayings Gospel Q in the Early Communities of Jesus’ Followers.” In Early Christian Voices: In Texts, Traditions, and Symbols; Essays in Honor of François Bovon. Edited by David H. Warren, Ann Graham Brock, and David W. Pao, 45–58. Biblical Interpretation Series 66. Boston: Brill Academic, 2003.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Koester suggests that the Didache may supply some of the context for Q’s meal practices and its missionary discourse; reprinted in Koester’s From Jesus to the Gospels: Interpreting the New Testament in Its Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) pp. 72–83.

    Find this resource:

  • Oakman, Douglas E. Jesus and the Peasants. Matrix: The Bible in Mediterranean Context 4. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2008.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    One of the most innovative and sophisticated books on Q, employing models from peasant studies and Mediterranean anthropology.

    Find this resource:

  • Theissen, Gerd. Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Although not devoted exclusively to Q, Theissen’s book argues that much of Q reflects the traditions of itinerant preachers of the Jesus movement. The thesis is widely influential but is also the subject of critiques in Arnal 2001 and Horsley 2006. Published in the United Kingdom as The First Followers of Jesus: A Sociological Analysis of the Earliest Christianity (London: SCM, 1978).

    Find this resource:

Q and Jesus

While earlier scholarship rather naively assumed that Q provided an untainted picture of the historical Jesus, the view of recent scholars, most clearly articulated by Tuckett 2002, recognizes that Q, no less than Mark, constructs a picture of Jesus that should not be confused with the historical Jesus. Lindemann 2001 contains key essays that examine the ways in which Q might (or should not) be used to think about the historical Jesus. Dunn 2003 is an attempt to maximize Q’s utility in historical Jesus reconstructions by minimizing Q’s editorial features and emphasizing the reliability of memory. Reed 2000, taking a very different approach, reads Q in relation to current Galilean archaeology, and argues that Q preserves a reliable representation of Galilee at the time of Jesus.

  • Dunn, James D. G. Jesus Remembered. Christianity in the Making 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Dunn is very skeptical of the construct of a “Q community,” of the positing of redactional strata in Q, and even that all of Q represents a single document. He insists that while early Jesus followers were not invested in a verbatim transmission of the Jesus tradition, neither is there evidence of the creation of Jesus sayings by Christian prophets or a significant redactional intervention in the Jesus material. Hence, much or most of what is ascribed to Jesus represents a reliable memory of Jesus. See especially pp. 147–160 and 224–238.

    Find this resource:

  • Lindemann, Andreas, ed. The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 158. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 2001.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Proceedings of the 2000 Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense, most with a focus on Q and the historical Jesus.

    Find this resource:

  • Reed, Jonathan L. Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the Evidence. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2000.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Reed, an archaeologist, discusses the importance of recent archaeological finds for understanding both Q and the historical Jesus.

    Find this resource:

  • Tuckett, Christopher M. “Q and the Historical Jesus.” In Der historische Jesus: Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwärtigen Forschung. Edited by Jens Schröter and Ralph Brucker, 213–241. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 114. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2002.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    An extremely careful and nuanced argument regarding how Q might (and should not) be used in the discussion of the historical Jesus.

    Find this resource:

Q and Mark

Since there is some overlap between Mark and most reconstructions of Q (such as in material relating to John the Baptist, the Beelzebul accusation, and the parable of the mustard seed), the question naturally arises whether there is a literary relationship between Mark and Q (a relationship that is normally conceived of as Mark’s dependence on Q). Fleddermann 1995 makes the strongest case for Mark’s dependence on Q. The case turns on whether there are sufficient similarities between Mark and Q to posit literary dependence, whether Mark’s presentation of these shared sayings or episodes consistently represents post-Q developments, and whether Mark betrays knowledge of Q’s editorial additions. For Laufen 1980 and Tuckett 1993, Mark does not consistently show post-Q developments or Q editorializing, and therefore cannot be considered to be dependent on Q, but rather represents a parallel, independent development of the Jesus tradition.

  • Fleddermann, Harry T. Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts, with an Assessment by F. Neirynck. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 122. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1995.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A thoroughgoing defense of the view that Mark is dependent on Q. Neirynck’s response rejects many of Fleddermann’s conclusions.

    Find this resource:

  • Laufen, Rudolf. Die Doppelüberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 54. Bonn, West Germany: Petr Hanstein, 1980.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Laufen examines the Q-Mark overlaps and concludes that one cannot show a consistent pattern of relative primitivity for either the Markan or the Q versions.

    Find this resource:

  • Tuckett, Christopher M. “Mark and Q.” In The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and New Literary Criticism. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 110. Edited by Camille Focant, 149–175. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1993.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Mark and Q represent independent versions of common tradition.

    Find this resource:

Q and Paul

Although Paul rarely refers to sayings of Jesus, he does so in 1 Corinthians when discussing marriage and divorce and the support of itinerant missionaries. This has raised the question of the relationship between Q (or more generally, the sayings tradition) and Paul. The consensus, represented by both Neirynck 1986 and Tuckett 1983, is that the parallels between Paul and Q are not sufficient to demonstrate Paul’s knowledge of Q, though Paul clearly knows some Jesus traditions.

  • Neirynck, Frans. “Paul and the Sayings of Jesus.” In L’apôtre Paul: Personnalité, style et conception du ministère. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 73. Edited by Albert Vanhoye, 265–321. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1986.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    An extensive examination of sayings of Jesus (not simply Q sayings) with alleged Pauline parallels. Neirynck concludes that Paul’s knowledge of Q “has not yet been demonstrated.”

    Find this resource:

  • Tuckett, C. M. “1 Corinthians and Q.” Journal of Biblical Literature 102.4 (1983): 607–619.

    DOI: 10.2307/3260868Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Paul (in 1 Corinthians) certainly shows knowledge of Jesus traditions, but it is much more questionable that these sayings came from Q.

    Find this resource:

Q and James

Although James never attributes any of the contents of the letter to Jesus or Jesus’ sayings, scholars have long noted the significant conceptual overlaps between James and the Q material (which are much more extensive than overlaps between Pauline material and Q). Recently, two concerted attempts have been made to show that James is not only aware of the Jesus tradition that was also incorporated into Q, but of Q itself (Hartin 1991). Kloppenborg 2004 offers a rhetorical model to account for the particulars of James’ use of the Jesus tradition.

  • Hartin, Patrick J. James and the Q Sayings of Jesus. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 47. Sheffield, UK: JSOT, 1991.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A careful comparison of Q sayings with the allusions to Jesus’ sayings in James, concluding that James had access to Q.

    Find this resource:

  • Kloppenborg, John S. “The Reception of the Jesus Tradition in James.” In The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 176. Edited by Jacques Schlosser, 93–139. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2004.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    This paper proposes the model of rhetorical paraphrase, or emulatio, for understanding the relation of James to Q.

    Find this resource:

Q and Thomas

The substantial overlaps and similarities between Q and the gospel of Thomas have raised the question of whether one knows and depends on the other. (This of course presupposes that the gospel of Thomas is in whole or in substantial part not simply dependent on the synoptic gospels but represents an independent collection of Jesus traditions.) Formal similarities between Q and Thomas have led to the suggestion that they share a common genre (see Q and Judean Wisdom). Whether there is a genetic link is another matter. Koester 1990 argues that there is not only a generic connection, but a genetic one; Tuckett 1991 maintains that Thomas is ultimately dependent on the Synoptics, and therefore a direct or even direct genetic relationship is unlikely.

  • Koester, Helmut. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development. London: SCM, 1990.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    In a wide-ranging study of early gospels, Koester argues that Q and Thomas derive from one or more early collections of Jesus’ sayings. See especially chapter 2.

    Find this resource:

  • Tuckett, C. M. “Q and Thomas: Evidence of a Primitive ‘Wisdom Gospel’? A Response to H. Koester.” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniense 67 (1991): 346–360.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    Contrary to Koester 1990, Tuckett argues that there is no evidence linking Thomas and Q to a protogospel source. It is more likely that Thomas is dependent on the final form of the Synoptics.

    Find this resource:

Theology

Discussions of the “theology” or conceptual content of Q are diverse and wide-ranging. Some have focused on the relationship between Q sayings and the historical Jesus (Gregg 2006); some emphasize the degree of coherence of the content of Q with other early expressions of the theology of the Jesus movement (Hurtado 2003). Three other studies intentionally locate Q’s thought world in relation to that of second temple Judaism: Hoffmann 1972 emphasizes Q’s use of apocalyptic frameworks and concepts; Johnson-DeBaufre 2005 stresses Q’s place within Judean discourse about the kingdom of God; and Rothschild 2005 situates much of Q’s discourse in relation to the activities and conceptual world of John the Baptist.

  • Gregg, Brian Han. The Historical Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2d ser., 207. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    One of the most clear, careful, and able analyses of the possible authenticity of the judgment sayings in Q.

    Find this resource:

  • Hoffmann, Paul. Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen Neue Folge 8. Munster, Germany: Aschendorff, 1972.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A wide-ranging and careful study of Q, examining Q’s imminent apocalyptic expectation, Q’s use of the Son of man title, Q’s relation to the Passion proclamation, and Q’s place in contemporary Judaism.

    Find this resource:

  • Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    In a massive study of early Christian devotion, Hurtado argues that Q is largely in agreement with other early forms of the Jesus movement, and was composed in Greek by Hellenists such as those associated with Stephen. See especially pp. 217–257.

    Find this resource:

  • Johnson-DeBaufre, Melanie. Jesus among Her Children: Q, Eschatology, and the Construction of Christian Origins. Harvard Theological Studies 55. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    A new approach to Q, which stresses exhortation and paraenesis over polemic, and a communal and cooperative vision of the basileia over the language of judgment and separation.

    Find this resource:

  • Rothschild, Clare K. Baptist Traditions and Q. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 190. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    An ambitious and only partially convincing attempt to argue for the Baptist provenance of much of the Q material.

    Find this resource:

back to top

Article

Up

Down