What is the Q Gospel? Is there any evidence for the Gospel of Q?

As it is, those who contend that Luke was dependent on Mark for his narrative portion have, on their own principles, to account for the large amount of matter, chiefly of course sayings, which is common to the first and the third Gospels, but without any equivalent in Mark. This presents itself for consideration in the section which immediately follows.

E. In an earlier section was foreshadowed that portion of the theory now in favour which, in particular, is supplementary to the portion of it dealt with in section D. Matthew and Luke also often agree closely when they do not follow Mark, that is, they have the same material within the limits of our second Gospel, which, nevertheless, has nothing corresponding to their parallels inter se. But neither Luke nor Matthew could have borrowed from the other, because the literary peculiarities of each remain the same as when following Mark (see section C. above).

The matter common only to Matthew and Luke is found to be a record chiefly of the Lord's sayings: see λόγων, verse 4 of the Prologue, R.V. marg. "words," and Luke 24:19, where "things" is divisible between "deed" and "word," for which last cf. John 17:8. The two are combined again in Acts 1:1, "to do and to teach." The deeds of our Lord, as has been seen, are supposed to be accounted for by the Marcan material in Luke (section D.); for the sayings, Weisse propounded a theory, that in the composition of the Gospel of Matthew use was made of another document, which H. Holtzmann, Weizsäcker, B. Weiss, Harnack, etc., think Luke also has turned to account, each compiler being independent of the other in the process. This further phenomenon has already been introduced in the last paragraph of note 10 on Mark (p. 238). It is discussed in, amongst recent books, Hawkins' "Horae Synopticae," pp. 88 ff.; Wernle, "Synoptic Question," pp. 80-91, 224-233; Wellhausen, "Introduction," pp. 65-68; Harnack, "Sayings," and B. Weiss, "Luke's Gospel," chapter 2; "Sources of Synoptic Tradition," chapters 1, 2: and Moffatt, "Introduction," pp. 194 ff.

The critics' belief was suggested by a statement preserved by Eusebius, of Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis (see note 1), which acquires importance for the study of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Papias speaks of a collection made by Matthew of Logia (λόγια) of our Lord in "the Hebrew dialect." From the use of this by the compiler of our first Gospel the name under which that goes is supposed to have been derived. Harnack, whilst himself of opinion (pp. 115, 171) that it is probable that this collection, which with B. Weiss he conceives lay primarily behind Luke's Gospel, was (as Salmon supposed) identically the same as that spoken of by Papias, thinks that it is a point which "can neither be proved nor disproved" ("Journal of Theological Literature," 1907. No. 5, p. 13 ff.). Weiss regards the compiler of the Logia as an eyewitness. To this hypothetical document the designation of "Q" has been given, as first letter of the German word for "source" (Quelle).

One stage in the conduct of this investigation was marked by a discussion of the supposed existence of an "original Mark" (Urmarcus, called by French writers Protomarc). English readers are referred for this to Burkitt, p. 40 ff. H. J. Holtzmann and Pfleiderer (i. 401) have been dominated by the idea of such a document having existed in Aramaic. Jülicher (p. 232) and Burkitt, amongst others, think that there was no such document behind the canonical Mark, the last-named German professor referring to the peculiarity of Mark's vocabulary and style, quite unlike a translation.

There remains, however, the question whether any other document, no longer existing, once furnished materials for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Another statement of Papias, also reproduced by Eusebius, appears in all the modern literature upon this topic. According to Papias (as well as Irenaeus and Origen), Matthew wrote λόγια (Oracles: cf. Rom. 3:2, Heb. 5:12) in the "Hebrew dialect," by which is understood Aramaic. Each, Papias says, made what he could of this record of "sayings." Its existence is not questioned by W. Kelly, or those like-minded (cf. "Irrationalism of Infidelity," pp. 102 note, 294). This is the document called "Q" by Wellhausen. Bishop Lightfoot ("Essays on Supernatural Religion," p. 173 f.) and Zahn (as Burkitt; p. 135, giving parallels with Mark at p. 147 f.) have thought that it recorded both acts and words of the Lord. Most are of opinion that, while Matthew's Gospel in its Greek form, and Luke may have drawn from this collection, Mark did not; but Ewald, B. Weiss, and Schanz extend its use to the second Gospel also. Of course, the existence of such a collection in Aramaic would carry with it the possibility of a corresponding Greek document. Words of the Lord not in our canonical Gospels seem to have been in circulation. In Acts 20:35 "remember" indicates that Paul was not speaking by revelation. "There can be no doubt," wrote Neander, "that Paul made use of written memoirs of the life of Christ" (p. 7). Some of the Apostle's own writings have not been in like manner rescued from oblivion (1 Cor. 5:9; Col. 4:16).

10 The natural solution — from the literary standpoint — is doubtless that the Synoptists either copy one from another, or make use of a common source (Burkitt, p. 34; cf. Westcott, pp. 184-186).

As common source, Lessing (1785) supposed (it is all a question of hypothesis, note 6) an Aramaic Gospel of the Nazarenes; and so Eichhorn (1794), whose work was translated into English by Bishop Marsh. Eichhorn held that no Synoptist had used either of the two others. Greswell makes the natural remark (p. 36) that "a primary common source might account for verbal agreements, but not for supplemental arrangement of facts"; and, the more helpful observation (p. 39 f.), that "if you believe in the inspiration of the Gospels, the supposed existence of sources from which the Evangelists derived their materials is not more precarious than unnecessary" (cf. note 13 below). Such is precisely the standpoint of these Lectures.

As far as Mark's Gospel is concerned, the idea of any document being behind it scholars now gradually give up (Burkitt, p. 63 f.). An exception is made with regard to Mark 13:14, where the words "Let him that readeth understand," Sanday (followed by Burkitt) may be right in saying, "could not have been suggested by oral tradition."

This "double tradition" of Matthew and Luke may be gathered from the passages set out in Rushbrooke's first appendix, pp. 134-170, where the material common to these two Evangelists is shown in capitals. The passages asterisked in the list of these below are considered by Wernle (§ 7) to be in historical order. The Matthew parallels (see again margin of Exposition) may be ascertained from reference Bibles, such as the Cambridge "Interlinear" or Bagster's. Cf. Hawkins, p. 107 ff.

It will be observed that in chapters 5, 18, 21, 23 f. nothing from "Q" is found noticeable. That document is thought to begin to be clearly discernible in the record of John's Baptism. According to Wernle's analysis, about 48 per cent. of our Gospel consists of discourses.

The text of "Q" as conceived by B. Weiss appears in chapter 1 of his critical commentary. Harnack similarly furnishes a translation of it according to his own analysis. Weiss has always contended that it extends to narrative also; until lately his view has been supported by very few writers; but Harnack now finds in "Q" seven narratives, two of them miracles of healing (p. 163). Orr also has recently expressed his agreement with Weiss on this point. Cf. Schmidt, pp. 219 f., 227 f.

It is commonly believed that "Q" was written originally in Aramaic, the colloquial dialect (Wellhausen, p. 14, etc.), in which form Pfleiderer and Nestle think that it was used by both Evangelists; but Abbot, Resch, Briggs, and the Jewish scholar Dr. Gaster are more probably right (such also was the opinion of Delitzsch in his later years) in holding that Hebrew was the language of its composition. Aramaic does not seem to have been used in Palestine for literature so early.

The late Bishop Goodwin gave as his judgment in the sixties that "the common written materials used by the Evangelists were not originally in Greek, but were translated into Greek by different hands" (p. xxxii.). It is clear that some record in Greek would early be needed by the Greek-speaking believers of the Dispersion, when it is remembered that there are said to have been no less than three hundred synagogues for the Hellenists (cf. Acts 6) at Jerusalem alone. Although the question of variations arising from different translations (see Jülicher, p. 359) may present itself, as Harnack says (p. 92), in places like Luke 15:4, "wilderness," compared with Matthew 18:12, "mountains," yet this distinguished scholar supports in the main the view of Weiss, that one and the same Greek version of "Q" was used by Matthew and Luke, because their verbal agreements in this element of each Gospel are generally so close.

Harnack, in an unwonted manner, goes almost into rhapsody over the sure ground afforded by agreement of "Q" with Mark ("Sayings," p. 249). It is certain that "Q," if ever it existed, harmonized with the same canonical Gospel as regards the large amount of Christ's "supernatural energy" — this is generally conceded.

But the view of most moderns, amongst them Ewald, Meyer, B. Weiss, and now Harnack ("Sayings," p. 112), is that the independence of Luke and of the present "Matthew" was established by Weisse (1838), after the great English scholar Thirlwall (Introduction to Schleiermacher's Essay) in 1825 had expressed the belief that neither of them could have known the other's account of the Infancy and the Resurrection. Current criticism favours the theory that it is the use by Luke of a document lying behind our Matthew which explains a considerable amount of matter being common to these two Gospels alone. This point will be discussed in section E. below.

Difficulty has arisen among critics in arriving at agreement as to the source of the special passages, whether oral or written. Wernle himself, amongst others, treats them as derivable from that writer's one written "special source" supposed to have been used by Luke.

Cf. the "Register" of B. Weiss in his "Sources of Luke's Gospel," pp. 10-12, and the margin of the text in the "Commentary on Luke," by J. Weiss ("Writings of the New Testament"), where "M" stands for Mark, "Q" for the collection of sayings, "S" for his father's "L."

The younger Weiss, after Pfleiderer and Wernle, regards "S" ("L") as an enlarged edition of "Q," applying this to "special" matter of either Matthew or Luke; but see Harnack's strictures in "Sayings," p. 185, note. Bartlet thinks that the "Q" element in Luke came to him already in "L" ("Oxford Studies," p. 360), and that this is largely parallel with Mark, where Luke's Gospel is (p. 361). Stanton likewise makes much of "L."