A Word on ‘Quelle’ or ‘Q’

This relates to the  belief held by some scholars (post-Christians, liberal Christians, secularists and some mainline Christians), that the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke:

•      Could not actually be “Matthew” and “Luke” (since these two Gospels were written long after 70-CE).
•      Were not eye witnesses to the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.
•      Relied on the developing oral tradition of the early Church regarding the sayings and teaching of Jesus.
•      Copied the majority of their text material from a pre-existing document.

The German researchers who pioneered the study named this pre-existing document ‘Quelle’ (in English: source), commonly abbreviated to ‘Q’.  It remains an entirely hypothetical document, since not so much as a partial copy has ever been found and no reference to its existence can be found in early Christian writings. 

The idea of its existence is inferred only from an analysis of Matthean and Lukan text that assumes: Firstly, that a substantial amount of text was derived from the Gospel of Mark.  And secondly, the many remaining passages, common to Matthew and Luke but not reflecting Mark, come from another source – that is, Q.

Advocates of the Q Document believe that its text can be reconstructed by drawing together those passages that Matthew and Luke have in common.  Consequently, if the Q Document exists, it can at best be regarded as a reconstructed Gospel, although many believe that it was actually written much earlier than the four canonical Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.  On the whole, it is largely viewed as a collection of sayings – not unlike the Gospel of Thomas.  Q does not refer to events such as the virgin birth, Jesus’ selection of twelve disciples, his crucifixion, resurrection or ascension to heaven, etc. Instead, it records aspects of Jesus' life and ministry as remembered by his followers and recorded some 20 years after his death.

Should the Q Document exist, then it is extremely important for enabling the construction of the earliest beliefs, behaviours and expectations of Jesus' first followers.  Advocates of Q are convinced that the canonical Gospels extensively contain unhistorical events, including actions Jesus did not take, words he did not say and teachings he did not give.  Therefore, discovery of the Q Document, written decades before the canonical Gospels, would allow the separation of fact from fiction in the Christian Scriptures.

It should be noted that the majority of theologians and historians regard the alleged Q Document as without any theological interest simply because there is no literary proof of any kind to support its existence and thus it remains a highly dubious, subjective fantasy.  In addition, the most recent scholarship concerning Gospel chronology strongly points to all four canonical Gospels being recorded before 70-CE, providing compelling support for historical authenticity and the possibility that the authors are indeed referring to their own experience of events.

Personally, I take no issue with the idea that Matthew and Luke may have relied upon Mark and/or other eye-witness accounts for their sources.  However, to extrapolate the existence of Q by dissecting the Gospels is, I believe, like buying a pound of sausages and snipping them up in an attempt to piece together the original pig.