The Question of Q

Q is a hypothetical document that is set to challenge the very core of Christianity. Modern research has revealed it as a gospel in its own right with its own literary history and contribution to theology. In this paper we shall briefly consider the 'discovery' of Q and its reconstruction before exploring the insights that Q offers into the origins of Christianity and the significance of those insights for modern Christian theology.

Although a relatively recent discovery in New Testament research, Q is believed to be a written, yet non-extant, collection of sayings ascribed to Jesus. The Q hypothesis was originally postulated in a bid to explain the textual parallels and discrepancies in the first three [synoptic] gospels.

Traditionally, Matthew was believed to be the earliest gospel, but in the nineteenth century, after considerable work on the 'synoptic problem', the Two Document Hypothesis was proposed. It was first put forward in 1838 by Christian Weisse, and later, in 1863, Heinrich Holtzmann produced a more comprehensive paper in which it was argued that Matthew and Luke were each dependent on Mark and another written (now lost) source. This lost source was understood as the collection of sayings of Jesus that we now refer to as Q. The Two Document Hypothesis challenged traditional scholarship of the time in that it averred the priority of Mark, but it is now widely accepted by the majority of New Testament scholars.

The text of Q has been reconstructed by numerous scholars based on the parallel, non-Markan texts of Matthew and Luke. By careful analysis of the synoptic gospels and the editorial tendencies of their authors/redactors, scholars have established the probable sequence and wording of the lost document although it has been suggested that there may have been different versions of Q around in the first century.

There is no definitive version of Q agreed on by all scholars. Discrepancies arise in final wordings, and some scholars would choose to include certain passages that appear solely in Matthew or Luke, however, there is a general consensus that the original text was in Greek and Luke better preserves the sequence of Q material. It is also widely accepted that apart from the narratives concerning John the Baptist, and the story of the healing of the Centurion's slave (Q 7:1-10) which is linked in the text to John the Baptist, only sayings can be assigned to Q.

It was originally believed that Q was a collection of authentic sayings spoken by Jesus during his ministry that had been impartially collated by early Christians, but Q was later held to be theologically associated with the Gospel of Mark. More recently Q has been understood, not as a miscellaneous collection of Jesus' sayings gathered indescriminately, but as a literary unit with its own compositional history and theology. Indeed, despite its lack of narrative and its omission of any acknowledgment of Jesusˇ¦ passion or resurrection, Q has been granted the status of 'gospel'. Its similarities with the newly found Gospel of Thomas help to substantiate the claim for such status.

By conceiving Q as a gospel, the door was opened to furthering the reconstruction of early Christian history for, as a gospel, we may conclude that Q had been written for a specific audience at a particular time in history. Dating the gospels is an inexact science and scholars must rely on clues from the text. Because Q gives no impression of any knowledge of the destruction of the temple, it is generally regarded as being written before 70CE although scholarly opinion varies. In 1987, John Kloppenborg proposed that Q was composed in stages, creating a breakthrough in Q research. Drawing on Kloppenborg, Burton Mack sets forth three main stages of Q composition, the earliest (Q1) having originated in Galilee around 50 CE with 'words' ascribed to Jesus dating back to the late 20s; the second (Q2), in northern Palestine about 65CE; and the final stage (Q3), contemporary with the Gospel of Mark, which he dates around 80CE. Helmut Koester, on the other hand, whilst accepting the layered structure of Q, claims the "entire development of Q....must be dated within the first three decades after the death of Jesus."

The literary style and theology of Q is markedly different from the canonical gospels. Although the text contains the sayings of Jesus, in view of the absence of narratives, and particularly narratives concerning Jesus' passion, we are called to question how the early Q community might have regarded Jesus.

The first layer of Q has been identified as sapiential sayings which advocate unusual and radical forms of public behaviour, subverting normal principles of retaliation, self-defence, family responsibilities and so forth. If the early Q community understood Jesus to be a sage, then it is feasible that his death would not have been a matter of great importance to the compilers of Q. As Koester puts it: "Just as the departure of Wisdom or one of her envoys does not constitute a change in the urgency of the message, so too Jesus' death would not be seen as a crisis of his proclamation......Any emphasis upon Jesus' death and resurrection would be meaningless in this context."

Koester notes that the wisdom speeches of Q are not concerned with law and tradition, thus he concludes "Q was composed at a time when the controversy of the law had not yet emerged, and when the question of observance of the law had not been used as a criterion in order to decide whether or not the followers of Jesus were within or outside of Israel."

Taking a similar track to Koester, Arnold Jacobson observes, "the community reflected in Q could not think of itself as anything but Jewish." He explains the absence of a passion narrative in Q by postulating that the redaction of Q was undertaken within the Deuteronomistic tradition. Within such a framework, Jacobson contends, "Jesus' death would be understood not as a salvific act but as evidence of Israel's continuing impenitence."

By connecting Q with the Deuteronomistic tradition Jacobson is able to explain the occurrence of both prophetic and wisdom strands within the Q material. (Lawrence Boadt lists moral concerns, sermonic style and the word of God being spoken through a leader as all recognised features of the Deuteronomic redactors.) If Jacobson's hypothesis is correct, this would imply that Q was originally composed to call the people of the Q community to repent and return to Torah (a principle theological concern of the Deuteronomists).

Not all scholars are willing to concede that the Q community was essentially non-Christian. Eugene Boring considers the Q community to be led by Christian prophets and contends that Q took on the character of "sayings of the risen Jesus". He asserts that many of the Q sayings were written or influenced by Christian prophets within the Q community. According to Boring, the Q community tended to focus on the "post-Easter exalted Jesus" and he claims: "What Jesus of Nazareth had said became dissolved in what the post-Easter Jesus said through his prophets."

Boringˇ¦s explanation for the absence of any passion material in Q would thus lie in the somewhat tenuous suggestion of presupposition. ie: the Q community was so focused upon the risen Jesus that the story of Jesus' death and resurrection was presupposed and considered redundant in the context of his teachings.

While Boring's portrayal of the Q community appears grounded in the conservative images of early Christianity based upon traditional interpretations of the canonical gospels, Jacobson, on the other hand, attempts to interpret Q outside of the historical framework presented in the synoptic gospels. He concludes that the Q community was fairly isolated and was pre-Christian in that it had "no redemptive understanding of Jesus' death, no explicit reference to the resurrection, no hint of any sacramental language, and little evidence, except at a late stage, of any advanced Christology."

Burton Mack portrays the early Q community in much the same way as Jacobson. Mack claims:

"The most remarkable thing about the people of Q is that they were not Christians. They did not think of Jesus as a Messiah or the Christ. They did not take his teachings as an indictment of Judaism. They did not regard his death as a divine, tragic or saving event. And they did not imagine that he had been raised from the dead to rule over a transformed world. Instead they thought of him as a teacher whose teachings made it possible to live with verve in troubled times."

The concept of non-Christian Q community potentially presents an enormous challenge to the traditional understandings of Christian beginnings. Rather than a community which emerged in response to the resurrection experience, we are shown a community which demonstrates no awareness of any such experience. In this community Jesus is not worshipped as Christ or Messiah, instead he is esteemed as a man of Wisdom. Basing his study on Kloppenborg's stratigraphy, Mack draws a parallel between the Jesus of Q and the Greek Cynics:

"Jesus' use of parables, aphorisms, and clever rejoinders is very similar to the Cynics' way with words. Many of his themes are familiar Cynic themes. And his style of social criticism, diffident and vague, also agrees with the typical Cynic stance."

In Mack's view Christianity emerged from an early 'Jesus movement' which itself originated as a Galilean version of Cynicism before the Jewish wars. Mack contends that the apocalyptic flavour of Q was a second stratum in Q's construction which served to bring judgment upon those who had frustrated the mission of the Jesus movement. Consequently, this second layer of Q focuses upon differentiating between those to be vindicated and those to be condemned at the time of the final trial.

The conventional understanding of early Christianity has tended to grant priority to the apocalyptic thinking within the New Testament, assuming that sapiential teachings later gained eminence within the early Church as the realisation set in that the end times were not immanent. If Mack's theories are correct, this understanding is inverted. Thus:

"In the light of Q, the congregations of Christ now have to be explained as emerging from the Jesus movements. The direction of development cannot be the other way around. Q reveals a vigorous movement that was not generated by a belief in Jesus as the Christ whose death and resurrection dramatically changed the course of history.

The implications of Mack's conclusions are extremely challenging to conservative theology which would prefer to see a more central role for the Cross in Christian origins. Within Mack's Q community, Jesus' authority was a gradual development rather than the foundation stone.

Critical to Mack's theory of the origins of Christianity is the construction of Q and the priority of the various stages within its development as tabled by Kloppenborg. Although most scholars now recognise that Q did develop textually and theologically through a series of redactions, their consensus does not stretch to delineating the various developmental stages. As with Boring, Blasi, Havener and Davies, there is still an inclination among many New Testament scholars to interpret the reconstructed Q within the traditional, canonical, historical framework.

The research into Q has come a long way since 1838, but, in terms of New Testament scholarship, Q research is still in its infancy. The Gospel of Q may well have been the first gospel to be recorded, and the Q community was perhaps the earliest community in the Jesus movement and, as such, a forerunner to Christianity. If this is so, the reconstructed Q may yet hold the key to a greater understanding of the origins of Christianity. Further research by scholars unafraid to venture beyond the traditional, theologically-defined boundaries is essential. Only then we might hope that, as new investigative methodologies are developed and current avenues are further explored, Q will serve to open the doors to our past and shed more light on Christianity's shadowy beginnings.

Bibliography

Blasi, Anthony J Early Christianity as a Social Movement New York: Peter Lang, 1988

Boadt, Lawrence Reading the Old Testament New York: Paulist Press, 1984

Boring, M Eugene Sayings of the Risen Jesus Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982

Davies, Stevan L New Testament Fundamentals Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1994

Havener, Ivan Q: The Sayings of Jesus Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1987

Jacobson, Arnold The First Gospel: An Introduction to Q Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1992

Kloppenborg, John L & Steinhauser, Michael Q Thomas Reader Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1990

Koester, Helmut Ancient Christian Gospels London: SCM Press, 1990

Mack, Burton L A Myth of Innocence Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988

Mack, Burton L The Lost Gospel San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1993

Miller, Robert J (ed) The Complete Gospels Sonoma: Polebridge Press, 1992