Maronite Meditation 79
We now come to what is known as the “Q hypothesis.” Bart Ehrman writes: “It is probably best for methodological purposes to define it strictly as material shared by Matthew and Luke that is not also found in Mark.” (110) Thus, the Q hypothesis means that when Ss Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels, they had available both the Gospel of St Mark and this putative text which is conventionally known as “Q,” from the German word “Quelle” meaning “source.” “Quelle” is cognate with our word “well,” as in “a well of water.”
As an example, consider the saying “A disciple is not above his teacher.” This is found in the Gospels of Ss Matthew and Luke, but not in St Mark’s; hence it is ascribed to Q. Academics then work on the assumption that Ss Matthew and Luke only knew that Our Lord had said “A disciple is not above his teacher” because it was quoted in Q. From a traditional perspective, St Matthew may well have been there when it was said, and St Luke may have heard it already from other apostles and disciples, or those who had heard it directly from them. They then included it in their Gospels because they believed in its truth as being consistent with their other knowledge. But the Q hypothesis does not necessarily carry that implication: it could, after all, be possible that one of them or both of them working in concert had written a document, let us call it the Q document, from their own knowledge (gained directly or indirectly) and that this helped them when they came to write their Gospel. But this is not how academics think of it: they see their putative Q document as a source independent of Matthew and Luke.
Now, the Q hypothesis does necessarily go with the theory of Markan priority (the view that St Mark’s was the first of the Gospels). The idea was, so far as I can tell, was gradually developed from speculations in Germany and England in the late 18th century, and formalised in its present form by C.H. Weisse in 1838. Further, in a development of the Q theory which received a standard formulation by Streeter in 1924, which Bart Ehrman accepts, St Matthew had a source or sources special to himself, designated as “M,” and St Luke likewise had one or more sources peculiar to himself, which are called “L.” Ehrman states that this theory, also known as the Four Document hypothesis, is considered to be “the least problematic.” (106-107, 110-112)
The International Q Project has put together a text, so we can read the putative Q document, although it is subject to some controversy. I provide the web link: https://web.archive.org/web/19990219224131/http://www.augustana.ab.ca/~bjors/q-english.htm
This reconstruction opens with the teaching of St John the Baptist in Luke 3, and closes with the Lord’s words to the Apostles in Luke 22:30, “in the [kingdom] <..> [] you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” In between, the Q Project includes the temptation in the wilderness (Luke 4); the Beatitudes and other sayings from Luke 6 which have overlap with St Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount; the stories of the centurion and John the Baptist from Luke 7; the Our Father (Luke 11); the woes from Luke 11; the parable of the mustard seed (Luke 13); and the eschatological warnings of Luke 17. Note that it does not include either an Infancy Narrative nor the Passion, Crucifixion, and Resurrection. It also lacks practically any of the narrative of the life of the Lord, except for the temptation, and Luke 7:1 which says that He entered Capharnaum. Other than these minimal, inconsequential exceptions, the purported Q document is essentially a collection of sayings of the Lord. This has given rise to the theory that an entire Christian community, using the oldest document in Christian history, did not preach Christ crucified, but only what he had said.
Although miracles and the exorcism of demons are referred to in the on-line Q document, and the supernatural appears in the temptation in the wilderness, no miracle-working narratives appear in it. The reconstructed Q thus does not fall foul of, and indeed supports what may be the key assumption of the contemporary Bible studies establishment: that the miracles of Christ, most especially the Resurrection, were not historical.
Where a passage is found in all three of the Synoptics, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it is said to belong to the “triple tradition.” Where it is found only in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark, then it belongs to the “double tradition,” and is usually assigned to Q; although there are many questions as to how great a similarity is needed to have any confidence that Matthew and Luke were using a written document and not just relying on an oral tradition.
Ehrman frankly admits that if there is a passage in either Matthew’s Gospel or Luke’s, which is not paralleled in the other, it may yet be from Q: we have no way of knowing. B.H. Streeter goes further, saying that Mark also used Q, as in his view, passages of Q were often mixed up with passages in St Mark’s Gospel. This should limit the use that can be made of the Q hypothesis, for if it is impossible to be at all sure what other passages in Ss Matthew and Luke are from it, how can we say what it contained?
To reiterate, the Q hypothesis means that as well as the four Gospels we know, there was at least one other significant document, which now survives only in the traces found in Matthew and Luke (or possibly in undetectable passages in St Mark). That reconstituted document is thought to be older than Mark’s Gospel, and many think that closer in time to Christ means closer to His authentic teaching. If it was produced by a “community,” then it can tell us something about what that community believed. Many studies, or I should say, purported studies, have been made which centre on or very much involve the so-called “Q community.” Based on arguments from its imagined contents, Q has often been placed in Galilee, but now some are arguing that the community was in Jerusalem. Once more, this does not disprove the theory, but we are entitled to wonder at its value, while conceding that it is good grist to the mill of the academic industry.
Ehrman is candid enough to state that the claims of many academics about what was or was not in Q are “exuberant.” The differences between Q-believers do not by themselves invalidate the Q hypothesis, but they certainly do nothing to strengthen it; and as we shall see, there are reasons to consider that hypothesis not only unproven but positively wrong. For example, most academics say that Q did not contain the Passion and Resurrection narratives, but to his credit, Bart Ehrman admits that we cannot know this for a fact. This sort of divergence is typical in Biblical studies. It may be a sign of vigorous intellectual activity and freedom of thought, but I suspect it is, on balance, more an indication of the subjectivity and incoherence of the applicable principles, because, from what I can see, modern biblical studies only allows latitude within certain limited parameters, tacitly understood by all who are educated in the informal Bible studies establishment.
Mark Goodacre, in The Case Againt Q, argues, I think with good reason, that: “If Matthew and Luke redacted Mark independently of one another, which is the essential premise of the Q theory, then we should not expect to see the number and quality of minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark that in fact we do see.” (152) To take an example, in Mark 14:65, we read:
And some began to spit on him and to cover his face and to strike him, saying to him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received him with blows.
Now, consider Matthew 26:67-68: “Then they spat in his face and struck him. And some slapped him, saying, “Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?” And now read Luke 22:64: “they also blindfolded him and kept asking him, “Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?” All three Gospels have the soldiers jeering at Our Lord, mockingly demanding Him to prophesy. That is quite explicable if both Matthew and Luke were using Mark. But note that Matthew and Luke both have a further scorn: “Who is it that struck you?” Now this cannot be from the imagined Q document, because it is usually said that Q does not include the Passion of the Lord, and this passage is not accepted as Q by the International Q Project; and it is not in Mark. So how can Matthew and Luke agree in this unless one of them had the other, or the both knew a tradition, other than Q, to this effect?
My own tentative view is that it is far more likely that St Mark’s Gospel was written first, then St Luke, using Mark plus other sources—whether oral or written or both we cannot tell—then St Matthew used those two Gospels plus his own personal knowledge and quite possibly other sources. Once more, we do not and cannot know the nature of the sources. The hypothesis that Matthew and Luke were not produced in complete isolation is less contrived than the Q theory—in fact, I would suggest, the very plasticity of Q is what allows it to continue. Its cloudiness makes it harder to clearly see just how implausible it is. But even more important to me than any such opinion about the development of the Gospels is the belief that the all four of the Gospels are authentic witnesses to the life and teaching of Christ. They may differ in details, and they complement each other in presenting unique perspectives on His life and teaching; but they can and should be read together, and not analysed as being made up of different strata, some being faithful to Christ’s teaching, and others reflecting innovations made after His death.
The Q hypothesis is the modern orthodoxy. But as Goodacre states: “…. it is not that ever-increasing numbers of students are trying and testing the Q hypothesis and finding it to be plausible. Instead, with its hypothetical nature hidden from view, students are not given the opportunity to ask the vital question of … whether or not the theory might be correct.” (9) This is a result of the way that the informal Bible studies establishment dominates academia and many seminaries. There is much in Goodacre’s book which I do not agree with. But he does make many good points: not least that: “… it is illegitimate to use the fact there is a general consensus on an issue as an argument in favour of that general consensus. The argument from the status quo is effectively little more than an assertion that there is a status quo …” (76)
Let us look at another specific instance, the Our Father, comparing that prayer as found in the ESV. First Matthew 6:9-13: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”
In St Luke, we read: “Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.” (11:2-4)
The two prayers are similar, but Streeter believed that because the Our Father was so different in Matthew and Luke, it cannot have come from Q. Fitzmyer, on the other hand, does ascribe the Our Father to Q. He simply asserts this to be the case, and then proceeds to tell us how Luke and Matthew changed the original Q, so that although he thinks Luke is closer to the original, he states as an indubitable fact Luke altered the original in ways which, fortunately for his readers, Fitzmyer can specify. When one considers that he does not have the original text, if any should have existed, his audacity is breathtaking. How can he be sure that Q had no surprises for him?
To my mind, by far the best explanation is that proffered to me by the late Dr Noel Weeks. When the question was raised, he asked me in words to this effect: “Is it not possible that Jesus gave that prayer in both forms? He was travelling from place to place. Would it not be natural for him to have repeated substantially the same teaching, but using different words?” The principle is excellent and insightful. That is the view I take today.
Further, when the analysis becomes as detailed and labyrinthine as Fitzmyer’s, it becomes an end in itself—the spiritual significance of the Gospels disappears from sight behind a tangle of arguments and conjectures.
We shall continue with the Q hypothesis in our next episode. But it is clear, I think, that the arguments given for it are not so firmly grounded as assumed. Certainly, I would say, the case for Q has to be made out with strong arguments as to why Matthew or Luke cannot have had the other’s Gospel. If that was so, there is no need for the Q hypothesis. But as we shall see, there are in fact several deep assumptions beneath Q: namely, that there are too many contradictions and divergences among Matthew and Luke for one to have had the other. And beneath much of the informal contemporary Bible studies establishment is the profound assumption, indeed, the dogmatically held act of faith, that there cannot have been any true prophecies, or any miracles. To maintain this, they have to separate the evangelists from first-hand knowledge of the life of Christ. They have to downgrade the evangelists from inspired writers, bringing a higher level of truth into this world: men illuminated and illuminating, into pamphleteers, making idiosyncratic and wilful changes to the texts available to them, to present as historically based a ministry and teaching which they themselves knew to be their own creative production. I have put this bluntly, but I do not believe unfairly. Of course the academics do not say this, although Ehrman in his candour comes close, but it is a fundamental idea.