Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

The so-called “Q” document has been a topic of intense discussion among scholars, particularly within liberal circles. The idea behind Q stems from an effort to explain similarities between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which contain shared material not found in the Gospel of Mark. According to proponents, Q represents a hypothetical written collection of Jesus’ sayings, predating the canonical Gospels, with some even proposing that Q contained the most “primitive” and “authentic” teachings of Jesus, excluding any mention of His miracles or deity.

However, the concept of Q has raised serious concerns, especially from a conservative Christian perspective, as it is often used to question the historical reliability of the Gospels and the early Christian proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God. This article will provide a thorough examination of the Q hypothesis, responding to key objections, and defending the historicity and divine authority of the biblical Gospels through the lens of Scripture and sound reasoning.

How Did the Hypothesis of Q Develop?

The Q hypothesis originates from the German word Quelle, meaning “source.” It proposes that Matthew and Luke drew from two primary sources: the Gospel of Mark and a now-lost sayings collection referred to as Q. This theory gained traction in the 19th century with Friedrich Schleiermacher, who misinterpreted a statement by Papias, an early church father, regarding the collection of sayings attributed to the apostle Matthew. Schleiermacher suggested that Matthew had only compiled Jesus’ sayings, not a full account of His works and deeds, leading to the formation of the idea of a separate “sayings source.”

This notion was further developed by other scholars such as Christian Hermann Weisse, who claimed that Luke used both Mark and Q to compose his Gospel. Since then, many proponents of Q have built elaborate theories about the stages of its development, categorizing it into various layers such as Q1, Q2, and Q3. According to this theory, Q1 presents a human Jesus as a teacher of wisdom, while Q2 portrays a more prophetic and apocalyptic figure, and Q3 introduces the divine elements, such as Jesus’ authority and hints of His resurrection.

However, the hypothetical nature of Q has not gone unchallenged. Conservative scholars have long rejected the Q hypothesis, pointing out its lack of documentary evidence and its reliance on speculative assumptions. Among the notable critics of Q are biblical scholars such as Eta Linnemann, John Wenham, and William Farmer, who argue that the canonical Gospels are reliable eyewitness accounts rather than products of a late-stage mythical evolution.

The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

Does Any Evidence Exist for the Q Document?

One of the most significant objections to the Q hypothesis is the complete lack of documentary evidence. No ancient manuscript of Q has ever been found, nor has any church father or early Christian writer ever cited or referenced a text resembling what modern scholars call Q. Given the meticulous nature of early Christian preservation of Scripture and the sheer volume of manuscripts and writings from the early church, it is highly improbable that a document as significant as Q could have existed without leaving a trace in the historical record.

Luke 1:1-4 provides insight into the method of Gospel composition, affirming that Luke relied on both eyewitness accounts and written sources. However, Luke does not mention any Q document, suggesting that he either used oral traditions or the earlier written Gospels themselves as sources. Luke states, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us” (Luke 1:1-2). This reference indicates that Luke drew from established sources already widely known among the early Christian community.

Additionally, there is no internal biblical or historical reason to assume that Matthew and Luke needed to rely on a lost document like Q. Instead, it is entirely plausible that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a primary source, supplemented by their own eyewitness knowledge or other oral and written traditions within the early church.

Is the Q Hypothesis Based on Circular Reasoning?

A critical problem with the Q hypothesis is that it is based on circular reasoning. Proponents of Q, such as Burton Mack and others, argue that the supposed order and arrangement of sayings in Q reflect the stages of development in the early Christian community’s beliefs about Jesus. However, the very Q that they claim exists is a reconstruction that they themselves have put together using the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Since Q is a hypothetical document, its supposed structure, stages, and layers of development are merely interpretations imposed upon it by those who already believe in its existence.

For example, Mack argues that the judgmental tone of Q2 reflects a later stage in the community’s beliefs, while Q1 portrays Jesus merely as a sage. However, this interpretation assumes the existence of Q in the first place. Critics like Gregory Boyd have pointed out the flaws in this reasoning, stating that Q proponents are effectively begging the question by constructing Q in a way that fits their preconceived notions about the evolution of early Christian beliefs. Boyd observes, “The only Q we possess was constructed by Q proponents from Matthew and Luke. They decided how these sayings would be put together” (Boyd, 125).

Furthermore, the attempt to stratify Q into various layers, with each layer representing a different phase of Christian development, rests on highly subjective criteria. There is no objective or verifiable standard by which to determine how such a document would have been compiled or how its content would have evolved over time.

What Is the Role of Oral Tradition in the Formation of the Gospels?

One of the central assumptions behind the Q hypothesis is that the common material in Matthew and Luke must be the result of a written source. However, this overlooks the possibility of oral tradition, which was highly developed and reliable in first-century Jewish culture. As conservative scholars have noted, Jewish oral tradition was known for its precision and fidelity in transmitting teachings across generations. The apostle Paul refers to the oral transmission of the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, saying, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.”

The early church was rooted in an oral culture, where teachings were passed down through communal memory, often with great care to ensure accuracy. This explains why Matthew and Luke could have similar material without relying on a written document like Q. The consistency between the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke can be attributed to the fact that they were drawing from a shared pool of oral tradition that had been faithfully preserved by the apostles and early disciples.

Does the Hypothetical Q Undermine the Deity and Miracles of Jesus?

Many proponents of the Q hypothesis argue that Q reflects an early “non-supernatural” understanding of Jesus, one that portrays Him merely as a wise teacher or prophet. This is particularly troubling for Christian apologetics because it suggests that the divine elements of Jesus’ identity were later additions to the Gospel tradition. According to this view, the earliest followers of Jesus did not believe in His deity, His resurrection, or His miracles, but these beliefs developed over time.

However, there is no basis for concluding that Q, even if it existed, lacked references to Jesus’ miracles or His divine authority. In fact, several of the sayings attributed to Q, such as those where Jesus predicts the future or speaks with authority about the kingdom of God, implicitly point to His divine identity. For instance, in Matthew 11:27 (a saying found in the supposed Q material), Jesus states, “All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” This saying clearly affirms Jesus’ unique relationship with God the Father, a relationship that transcends the role of a mere teacher or prophet.

Additionally, the Gospels consistently depict Jesus performing miracles and exercising divine authority, including the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7), calm storms (Mark 4:39-41), and raise the dead (John 11:43-44). These miracles are integral to the Gospel accounts and are attested by multiple sources within the New Testament. The idea that the early church would have omitted such crucial aspects of Jesus’ identity in its earliest documents strains credulity.

Moreover, the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah, such as Isaiah 9:6, which refers to the coming Messiah as “Mighty God,” provide a clear expectation that the Messiah would be more than a human teacher. Jesus’ claim to fulfill these prophecies (Luke 4:21) further affirms His self-understanding as the divine Son of God.

How Does the Historical Reliability of Acts Challenge the Q Hypothesis?

The book of Acts, written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke, provides a robust challenge to the Q hypothesis, especially in its naturalistic form. If Q were correct, and the earliest Christians did not believe in Jesus’ deity or miracles, we would expect the book of Acts to reflect this more primitive understanding of Jesus. Instead, Acts consistently presents Jesus as the risen Lord who performs miracles, pours out the Holy Spirit, and fulfills the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah.

Acts also demonstrates the early church’s unified belief in the divinity of Christ, as seen in Peter’s sermon at Pentecost: “Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36). This proclamation occurs only weeks after Jesus’ resurrection and reflects the firm conviction of the apostles regarding His divine identity and role as the Savior of mankind.

Historians such as A. N. Sherwin-White have documented the overwhelming historical accuracy of Acts, further confirming its reliability as a first-century document. Sherwin-White asserts, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming.… Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd” (Sherwin-White, 189). This level of historical reliability undermines the claims of Q proponents that the early church’s beliefs about Jesus evolved over time, since Acts clearly presents a high Christology from the beginning.

How Does the Canonical Gospels’ Eyewitness Testimony Defend Against the Q Hypothesis?

One of the strongest arguments against the Q hypothesis is the eyewitness nature of the canonical Gospels. Both Matthew and John were written by apostles who were direct witnesses to Jesus’ life and ministry. Mark’s Gospel is believed to be based on the eyewitness testimony of Peter, while Luke carefully investigated the accounts from those who were eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2). This emphasis on firsthand testimony provides a firm foundation for the historical reliability of the Gospels.

The apostle John writes in his Gospel, “He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe” (John 19:35). This claim to eyewitness testimony serves as a powerful counter to the idea that the Gospel accounts were later mythological developments. The apostles were not simply compiling hearsay or legends; they were recording what they had personally seen and experienced.

Given the closeness of the apostolic community to the events of Jesus’ life, there is no reason to believe that a separate, non-supernatural tradition like Q would have been necessary or influential. The early church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, preserved the authentic teachings of Jesus as conveyed by those who had walked with Him.

The Unfounded Nature of the Q Hypothesis

The Q hypothesis, though popular among some scholars, remains highly speculative and lacks the support of historical, documentary, or literary evidence. Its circular reasoning, reliance on subjective reconstructions, and disregard for the historical reliability of the New Testament undermine its credibility. Moreover, the existence of well-attested canonical Gospels, rooted in eyewitness testimony, provides a far more reliable and coherent account of Jesus’ life, miracles, and divine identity.

Ultimately, the Q hypothesis serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding the authority of Scripture and rejecting theories that seek to undermine the foundational truths of the Christian faith. As believers, we can confidently trust in the accuracy of the Gospels, knowing that they faithfully transmit the words and deeds of our Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God.

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).