Q source

The Q source (also called The Sayings Gospel, Q Gospel, Q

document(s), or Q; from German: Quelle, meaning "source") is
a hypothetical written collection of primarily Jesus' sayings
(λόγια : logia). Q is part of the common material found in the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark.
According to this hypothesis, this material was drawn from the
early Church's oral gospel traditions.[1][2][3]

Along with Marcan priority, Q was hypothesized by 1900, and is

one of the foundations of most modern gospel scholarship.[4] B.
H. Streeter formulated a widely accepted view of Q: that it was
written in Koine Greek; that most of its contents appear in
Matthew, in Luke, or in both; and that Luke more often preserves
the text's original order than Matthew. In the two-source The "Two-source Hypothesis"
hypothesis, the three-source hypothesis and the Q+/Papias proposes that the Gospels of
hypothesis, Matthew and Luke both used Mark and Q as sources. Matthew and Luke were written
Some scholars have postulated that Q is actually a plurality of independently, each using Mark
sources, some written and some oral.[5] Others have attempted to and a second hypothetical
document called "Q" as a
determine the stages in which Q was composed.[6]
source. Q was conceived as the
most likely explanation behind
Q's existence has been questioned.[6] Omitting what should have
the common material (mostly
been a highly treasured dominical document from all early Church
sayings) found in the Gospel of
catalogs, its lack of mention by Jerome is a conundrum of modern
Matthew and the Gospel of Luke
Biblical scholarship.[7] However, copying Q might have been seen
but not in the Gospel of Mark.
as unnecessary, as its contents were preserved in the canonical Material from two other sources
gospels. Hence, it may have been preferable to copy instead from —the M source and the L source
the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, "where the sayings of Jesus —are represented in the
from Q were rephrased to avoid misunderstandings, and to fit Gospels of Matthew and Luke
their own situations and their understanding of what Jesus had here by green and teal
really meant".[8] Despite challenges, the two-source hypothesis respectively.
retains wide support.[6]

History
For centuries, biblical scholars followed the Augustinian hypothesis: that the Gospel of Matthew
was the first to be written, Mark used Matthew in the writing of his, and Luke followed both
Matthew and Mark in his (the Gospel of John is quite different from the other three, which
because of their similarity are called the Synoptic Gospels). Nineteenth-century New Testament
scholars who rejected Matthew's priority in favor of Marcan priority speculated that Matthew's
and Luke's authors drew the material they have in common with the Gospel of Mark from the
Gospel of Mark. However, Matthew and Luke also share large sections of text not found in Mark.
They suggested that neither Gospel drew upon the other, but upon a second common source,
termed Q.[a][9]

Herbert Marsh is seen by some as the first person to hypothesize the existence of a "narrative"
source and a "sayings" source, although he included in the latter parables unique to Matthew and
unique to Luke.[10] In his 1801 work, A dissertation on the Origin and Composition of our Three
First Canonical Gospels, he used the Hebrew letter aleph (‫ )א‬to denote the narrative source and
the letter beth (‫ )ב‬to denote the sayings source.[11]

The next person to advance the "sayings" hypothesis was the German Friedrich Schleiermacher in
1832. Schleiermacher interpreted an enigmatic statement by the early Christian writer Papias of
Hierapolis, c. 95–109 AD ("Matthew compiled the oracles (logia) of the Lord in a Hebrew manner
of speech, and everyone translated them as well he could")[12] as evidence of a separate source.
Rather than the traditional interpretation—that Papias was referring to the writing of Matthew in
Hebrew—Schleiermacher proposed that Papias was actually referring to a sayings collection of the
apostle Matthew that was later used, together with narrative elements, by another "Matthew" and
by the other Evangelists.[13]

In 1838 another German, Christian Hermann Weisse, took Schleiermacher's suggestion of a

sayings source and combined it with the idea of Marcan priority to formulate what is now called
the Two-Source Hypothesis, in which both Matthew and Luke used Mark and the sayings source.
Heinrich Julius Holtzmann endorsed this approach in an influential treatment of the synoptic
problem in 1863, and the two-source hypothesis has dominated ever since.

At this time, the second source was usually called the Logia, or Logienquelle ('logia-source'),
because of Papias's statement, and Holtzmann gave it the symbol Lambda (Λ). However, toward
the end of the 19th century, doubts began to grow about the propriety of anchoring its existence to
Papias's account, with the symbol Q (which was devised by Johannes Weiss to denote Quelle,
meaning 'source') adopted instead to remain neutral about the connection of Papias to the
collection of sayings.

This two-source hypothesis speculates that Matthew borrowed from both Mark and Q. For most
scholars, Q accounts for what Matthew and Luke share—sometimes in exactly the same words—
but that are absent in Mark. Examples are the Devil's three temptations of Jesus, the Beatitudes,
the Lord's Prayer, and many individual sayings.[14]

In The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (1924), Burnett Hillman Streeter argued that a third
hypothetical source, referred to as M, lies behind the material in Matthew that has no parallel in
Mark or Luke, and that some material present only in Luke might have come from an also
unknown L source.[15] This hypothesis posits that underlying the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are
at least four sources, namely the Gospel of Mark and three lost texts: Q, M, and L.

Throughout the remainder of the 20th century, there were various challenges and refinements of
Streeter's hypothesis. For example, in his 1953 book The Gospel Before Mark, Pierson Parker
posited an early version of Matthew (Aramaic M or proto-Matthew) as the primary source.[16]
Parker argued that it was not possible to separate Streeter's "M" material from the material in
Matthew parallel to Mark.[17][18]

In the early 20th century, more than a dozen reconstructions of Q were made, but differed so
much from each other that not a single verse of Matthew was present in all of them. As a result,
interest in Q subsided, and the topic was neglected for many decades.

Following the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas in the Nag Hammadi library, the Jesus Seminar
proposed that such apocryphal Gospel could be the Q source, but most scholars reject this thesis
and place Thomas in the first half of the 2nd century CE.[19]

Composition
Redactional speculation, notably in the work of John S. Kloppenborg analyzing certain literary and
thematic phenomena, argued that Q was composed in three stages. In the view of Kloppenborg,
the earliest stage of its redaction was a collection of wisdom sayings involving issues such as
poverty and discipleship. Then, he posits, this collection was expanded by including a layer of
judgmental sayings directed against "this generation". The final stage included the Temptation of
Jesus narrative.

Although Kloppenborg cautioned against assuming that Q's composition history is the same as the
history of the Jesus tradition (i.e., that the oldest layer of Q is necessarily the oldest and pure-layer
Jesus tradition), some recent seekers of the Historical Jesus, including members of the Jesus
Seminar, have done just that. Basing their reconstructions primarily on the Gospel of Thomas and
the oldest layer of Q, they propose that Jesus functioned as a wisdom sage, rather than a Jewish
rabbi, though not all members affirm the two-source hypothesis. Kloppenborg is now a fellow of
the Jesus Seminar himself.

However, scholars supporting the three-stage Q development hypothesis, such as Burton L. Mack,
argue that Q's unity comes not only from its being shared by Matthew and Luke, but also because,
in the layers of Q as reconstructed, the later layers build upon and presuppose the earlier ones,
whereas the reverse is not the case. In this argument, evidence that Q has been revised is not
evidence for disunity in Q, since the hypothesised revisions depend upon asymmetric logical
connections between what are posited to be the later and earlier layers.[20]

Some biblical scholars believe that an unknown redactor composed a Greek-language proto-
Gospel. It may have been circulating in written form about the time the Synoptic Gospels were
composed (i.e., between late 50s and mid-90s AD). The name Q was coined by the German
theologian and biblical scholar Johannes Weiss.[21]

Synoptic Gospels and the nature of Q

The relationship among the three synoptic gospels goes beyond mere similarity in viewpoint. The
gospels often recount the same stories, usually in the same order, sometimes using the same
words. Scholars note that the similarities between Mark, Matthew, and Luke are too great to be
coincidental.[22][23]

If the two-source hypothesis is correct, then Q would probably have been a written document. If Q
was a shared oral tradition, it is unlikely that it could account for the nearly identical word-for-
word similarities between Matthew and Luke when quoting Q material. Similarly, it is possible to
deduce that Q was written in Greek. If the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were referring to a
document that had been written in some other language (such as Aramaic), it is highly unlikely
that two independent translations would have exactly the same wording.[24]

The Q document must have been composed before Matthew and Luke; some scholars even suggest
that Q predated Mark. A date for the final Q document is often placed in the 40s or 50s of the 1st
century, with some arguing its so-called sapiential layer (1Q, containing six wisdom speeches) was
written as early as the 30s.[25]
If Q existed, physical copies of it have since been lost. Some scholars, however, believe it can be
partially reconstructed by examining elements common to Matthew and Luke (but absent from
Mark). Versions of this reconstructed Q do not describe the events of Jesus' life: Q does not
mention Jesus' birth, his selection of the 12 disciples, his crucifixion, or the resurrection. Instead,
it appears to be a collection of Jesus' sayings and quotations.

Case for Q

The case for Q's existence follows from the argument that neither Matthew nor Luke is directly
dependent on the other in the double tradition (defined by New Testament scholars as material
that Matthew and Luke share that does not appear in Mark). However, the verbal agreement
between Matthew and Luke is so close in some parts of the double tradition that the most
reasonable explanation for this agreement is common dependence on a written source or sources.
Even if Matthew and Luke are independent (see Marcan priority), the Q hypothesis states that they
used a common document. Arguments for Q being a written document include:

Sometimes the exactness in wording is striking, for example, Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13,[26]
(27 and 28 Greek words respectively); Matthew 7:7–8 and Luke 11:9–10,[27] (24 Greek words
each).
There is sometimes commonality in order between the two, for example the Sermon on the
Plain and Sermon on the Mount.
The presence of doublets, where Matthew and Luke sometimes each present two versions of
a similar saying but in different context, only one of those versions appearing in Mark. Doublets
may be considered a sign of two written sources, i.e., Mark and Q.
Luke mentions that he knows of other written sources of Jesus' life, and that he has
investigated in order to gather the most information.[28][29]

The fact that no Q manuscripts exist today does not necessarily argue against its existence. Many
early Christian texts no longer exist, and are only known of through citation or mention of them in
surviving texts. Once Q's text was incorporated into the body of Matthew and Luke, it may have
been no longer necessary to preserve it, just as interest in copying Mark seems to have waned
substantially once it was incorporated into Matthew.[30] The editorial board of the International Q
Project writes: "During the second century, when the canonizing process was taking place, scribes
did not make new copies of Q, since the canonizing process involved choosing what should and
what should not be used in the church service. Hence they preferred to make copies of the Gospels
of Matthew and Luke, where the sayings of Jesus from Q were rephrased to avoid
misunderstandings, and to fit their own situations and their understanding of what Jesus had
really meant."[8]

Case against Q

The existence of the "minor agreements" within the two-source hypothesis has raised serious
concerns. These minor agreements are those points where Matthew and Luke agree against or
beyond Mark precisely within their Marcan verses (for example, the mocking question at the
beating of Jesus, "Who is it that struck you?",[31] found in both Matthew and Luke but not in Mark,
although this "minor agreement" falls outside the usually accepted range of Q). The "minor
agreements" call into question the proposition that Matthew and Luke knew Mark but not each
other, e.g. Luke might have indeed been following Matthew, or at least a Matthew-like source.
Peabody and McNicol argue that until a reasonable explanation is found the two-source hypothesis
is not viable.[32]
New Testament scholar James Edwards argues that the existence of a treasured sayings document
in circulation going unmentioned by early Church Fathers remains one of the great conundrums of
modern Biblical scholarship.[7] Pier Franco Beatrice argues that until these issues are resolved, Q
will remain in doubt.[33]

Some scholars argue that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was the basis for the synoptic
tradition.[34][35] They point out that in the first section of De Viris Illustribus (Jerome), the Gospel
of Mark is where it should be as it was the first gospel written and was used as a source for the
later gospels.[36] Following it should be Q; but not only is Q not where it should be at the top of
Jerome's list, this treasured work recording the Logia of Christ is mentioned nowhere by
Jerome.[36] Rather, the first seminal document is not Q, but the Gospel according to the
Hebrews.[37]

Austin Farrer,[38] Michael Goulder,[39] and Mark Goodacre[40] have also argued against Q,
maintaining Marcan priority, claiming the use of Matthew by Luke. This view has come to be
known as the Farrer hypothesis. Their arguments include:

Farrer, in his 1955 paper that first outlined this hypothesis, notes that when two documents
contain common material, identical in the words and phrases they use to describe some
scenes, the simplest explanation is that one of the two used the other as a source, rather than
both using a third document as a source.[38]
Goulder points to common Matthean phrases such as "brood of vipers", "make fruit", and "cast
into the fire" that each appear in Luke only once, in a Q passage. Goulder's conclusion, based
on writing styles, is that Matthew is the source for these "Q" sayings.[39]
Goodacre notes that there is no extant copy of Q and that no early church writer makes an
unambiguous reference to a document resembling the Q that modern scholars have
reconstructed from the common material in Luke and Matthew.[41]

While supporters say that the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas supports the concept of a "sayings
gospel", Mark Goodacre points out that Q has a narrative structure as reconstructed and is not
simply a list of sayings.[41]

Other scholars have brought other arguments against Q:

Two documents, both correcting Mark's language, adding birth narratives and a resurrection
epilogue, and adding a large amount of "sayings material", are likely to resemble each other, rather
than to have such similar scope by coincidence. Specifically, there are 347 instances (by Neirynck's
count) where one or more words are added to the Marcan text in both Matthew and Luke; these
are called the "minor agreements" against Mark. Some 198 instances involve one word, 82 involve
two words, 35 three, 16 four, and 16 instances involve five or more words in the extant texts of
Matthew and Luke as compared to Marcan passages.[42] John Wenham (1913–1996) adhered to
the Augustinian hypothesis that Matthew was the first Gospel, Mark the second, and Luke the
third, and objected on similar grounds to those who hold to the Griesbach hypothesis. Eta
Linnemann, formerly a follower of Rudolf Bultmann, rejected Q, and Marcan priority, for a
variation of the Two Gospel hypothesis that holds that the Mosaic requirement for "two witnesses"
made two Jewish Gospels a necessity in the Diaspora audiences.[43]

Notable contents
Some of the more notable portions of the New Testament are believed to have been first recorded
in Q:[44]

The Beatitudes
 Love your enemies
Golden Rule[45][46]
Judge not, lest ye be judged
The Test of a Good Person
The Parable of the Wise and the Foolish Builders
The Parable of the Lost Sheep
The Parable of the Wedding Feast
The Parable of the Talents
The Parable of the Leaven
Parable of the blind leading the blind
The Lord's Prayer
Expounding of the Law
The Birds of the Air

See also
Bible portal

Agrapha – Sayings of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels

Common Sayings Source – Hypothesized source document containing sayings attributed to
Jesus
Gospel harmony – Attempt to compile the canonical gospels of the New Testament into a
single account
Documentary hypothesis – A similar theory surrounding the creation of the Torah
Apocryphal gospels

Notes
a. This hypothetical lost text—also called the Q Gospel, the Sayings Gospel Q, the Secret of Q,
the Synoptic Sayings Source, the Q Manuscript, and (in the 19th century) The Logia—is
said to have comprised a collection of Jesus' sayings. Acceptance of the theories of the
existence of "Q" and the priority of Mark are the two key elements in the "two-source
hypothesis". (See also the Gospel of the Hebrews and Streeter.)

References
1. Horsley, Richard A.; Draper, Jonathan A. (November 1999). Whoever Hears You Hears Me:
Prophets, Performance, and Tradition in Q (https://archive.org/details/whoeverhearsyouh00ric
h). A&C Black. p. 150 (https://archive.org/details/whoeverhearsyouh00rich/page/150)–74.
ISBN 9781563382727.
2. Dunn, James D. G. (July 29, 2003). Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=G4qpnvoautgC&pg=PA192). pp. 192–210. ISBN 9780802839312.
3. Mournet, Terence C. (2005). Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency: Variability and Stability in
the Synoptic Tradition and Q (https://books.google.com/books?id=IJUy8mw4ZPwC&pg=PA54).
pp. 54–99. ISBN 9783161484544.
4. Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The Five Gospels.
HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. "Introduction," pp. 1–30.
5. Mournet, Terence C. (2005). Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency: Variability and Stability in
the Synoptic Tradition and Q (https://books.google.com/books?id=IJUy8mw4ZPwC&pg=PA19
2). pp. 192–286. ISBN 9783161484544.
 6. "'Q.'" Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. New York: Oxford
University Press. 2005
7. Edwards, James R. (October 16, 2009). The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the
Synoptic Tradition (https://books.google.com/books?id=Vs9YXAB_axYC&pg=PA228). p. 228.
ISBN 9780802862341.
8. (From the preface to the Sayings Gospel Q, International Q Project, 2001
http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~kloppen/iqpqet.htm)
9. D. R. W. Wood, New Bible Dictionary (InterVarsity Press, 1996), 739.
10. William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem, 1964, Macmillan, p. 14
11. Hultgren, Stephen (2002). Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=cmljv-87baAC&pg=PA5). Walter de Gruyter. pp. 4–5.
12. Yarbrough, Robert W. (June 1983). "The Date of Papias: A Reassessment" (http://www.etsjets.
org/files/JETS-PDFs/26/26-2/26-2-pp181-191_JETS.pdf) (PDF). Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society. 26 (2): 181–191.
13. Hultgren, Stephen (2002). Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition: A Study of Their Place
within the Framework of the Gospel Narrative (https://books.google.com/books?id=cmljv-87ba
AC&pg=PA9). pp. 9–10. ISBN 9783110175257.
14. Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford University Press,
pp. 80–81
15. Streeter, Burnett H. The Four Gospels. A Study of Origins Treating the Manuscript Tradition,
Sources, Authorship, & Dates (http://www.katapi.org.uk/4Gospels/Contents.htm). London:
Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1924.
16. Pierson Parker. The Gospel Before Mark. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.
17. William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: a Critical Analysis, Macmillan, 1981 p. 196
18. Harrison, Everett Falconer (1964). Introduction to the New Testament (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=qh7b4o6JQpIC&pg=PA152). p. 152. ISBN 9780802847867.
19. Bart D. Ehrman (1999). Jesus, apocalyptic prophet of the new millennium (https://archive.org/d
etails/jesusapocalyptic00ehrm). Internet Archive. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-
512473-6.
20. The Lost Gospel: The Book Q and Christian Origins. Macmillan Co. 1993.
21. "Britannica" (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/485332/Q). Britannica. Retrieved
April 15, 2012.
22. Tony Honoré, "A Statistical Study of the Synoptic Problem." Novum Testamentum August 10 –
July (1968): 95–147. On page 96 Honoré compares the similarities between the three Gospels
with the number of words in common.
23. Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian
Writings. New York: Oxford. p. 84. ISBN 978-0-19-515462-7.
24. Burkett, Delbert Royce (2009). Rethinking the Gospel Sources: The unity or plurality of Q (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=JvO4rj3NOoAC&pg=PA47). pp. 47–48. ISBN 9781589834125.
25. Dunn, James D. G., Christianity in the Making Volume 1: Jesus Remembered. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2003. p. 159
26. Matthew 6:24 (https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Matthew%206:24&version=nrsv), Luke
16:13 (https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Luke%2016:13&version=nrsv)
27. Matthew 7:7–8 (https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Matthew%207:7–8&version=nrsv), Luke
11:9–10 (https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Luke%2011:9–10&version=nrsv)
28. Luke 1:1–4 (https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Luke%201:1–4&version=nrsv)
29. Thomas, Robert L.; David Farnell, F. (1998). The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical
Criticism into Evangelical Scholarship (https://books.google.com/books?id=QtE1orv4Xg0C&pg
=PA136). pp. 136–140. ISBN 9780825438110.
30. See C.M. Tuckett, "The Existence of Q", pp. 19–48, in The Gospel Behind the Gospels:
Current Studies on Q. Edited by R. Piper. Leiden: Brill, 1995 (especially p. 20).
31. Luke 22:64 (https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Luke%2022:64&version=nrsv),Matthew 26:68
(https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Matthew%2026:68&version=nrsv)
32. Peabody, David B.; McNicol, Allan James; Cope, Lamar (November 2002). One Gospel from
Two: Mark's Use of Matthew and Luke (https://archive.org/details/onegospelfromtwo00davi).
A&C Black. p. 1 (https://archive.org/details/onegospelfromtwo00davi/page/n5)–6.
ISBN 9781563383526.
33. Pier Franco Beatrice, The Gospel according to the Hebrews in the Apostolic Fathers (http://ww
w.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/not/2006/00000048/00000002/art00003) Archived (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20121024010210/http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/not/2006/00
000048/00000002/art00003) October 24, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, Novum
Testamentum, 2006, vol. 48, no2, pp. 147–95 (ingentaconnect.com)
34. Pierson Parker (December 1940). "A Proto-Lucan basis for the Gospel according to the
Hebrews". Journal of Biblical Literature. 59 (4): 471–478. doi:10.2307/3262407 (https://doi.org/
10.2307%2F3262407). JSTOR 3262407 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3262407).
35. Lillie, Arthur (2005). The Gospel According to the Hebrews. Kessinger Publishing. pp. 111–134.
ISBN 978-1-4253-7051-0.
36. Jerome, Saint (1999). Ste. Jerome, On illustrious men 1:4 (https://books.google.com/books?id
=uqzY1zBtKg0C&pg=PA5). ISBN 9780813201009.
37. Jerome, Saint (1999). Ste. Jerome, On illustrious men 3:1 (https://books.google.com/books?id
=uqzY1zBtKg0C&pg=PA8). ISBN 9780813201009.
38. Austin M. Farrer, "On Dispensing with Q" in D. E. Nineham (ed.), Studies in the Gospels:
Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955), pp. 55–88, reproduced at "On
Dispensing With Q" (https://web.archive.org/web/20090201122628/http://www.ntgateway.com/
Q/farrer.htm). Archived from the original (http://ntgateway.com/Q/Farrer.htm) on February 1,
2009. Retrieved October 15, 2011.
39. For example, Michael Goulder, "Is Q a Juggernaut", Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996),
pp. 667–681, reproduced at "Is Q a Juggernaut?" (https://web.archive.org/web/200707081708
48/http://ntgateway.com/Q/goulder.htm). Archived from the original (http://ntgateway.com/Q/go
ulder.htm) on July 8, 2007. Retrieved July 17, 2007..
40. See, for example, Mark Goodacre, The Case Against Q: Studies in Marcan Priority and the
Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002)
41. "Ten Reasons to Question Q" (http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/ten.htm). Markgoodacre.org.
January 10, 2003. Retrieved April 15, 2012.
42. These statistics are taken from an analysis by Walter M. Shandruk of Frans Neirynck's The
Minor Agreements of Matthew of Luke and Mark with a Cumulative List, Leuven University
Press, 1974. The results of Shandruk's analysis have been posted at
http://neonostalgia.blogspot.com/2005/09/minor-agreements-against-mark.html Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20140309062137/http://neonostalgia.blogspot.com/2005/09/minor-agr
eements-against-mark.html) March 9, 2014, at the Wayback Machine
43. Robert L. Thomas Three views on the origins of the Synoptic Gospels 2002. pp. 255, 322
"Farnell's third axiom notes, quoting Linnemann, that the reason for four independent Gospels
stems from the legal principle of Deuteronomy 19:15b: '[O]n the evidence of two or three
witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.'"
44. Reconstruction of Q (https://web.archive.org/web/19990219224131/http://www.augustana.ab.c
a/~bjors/q-english.htm) by the International Q Project.
45. Clayton N. Jefford (1989). The Sayings of Jesus in The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=iHmB2TW7VIcC&pg=PA33). ISBN 978-9004091276.
Retrieved April 29, 2012.
46. A. M. H. Saari (July 26, 2006). The Many Deaths of Judas Iscariot: A Meditation on Suicide (htt
ps://books.google.com/books?id=u2G0zAu2Dz8C&pg=PA25). ISBN 9780203087480.
Retrieved April 29, 2012.

Further reading
Bibliographies

John S. Kloppenborg: Q, the Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and
Sayings of Jesus. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville 2008, ISBN 978-0-664-23222-1
Klaus-Stefan Krieger: Was sagte Jesus wirklich?. Vier Türme, Münsterschwarzach 2003,
ISBN 3-87868-641-2
Thomas R. W. Longstaff, Page A. Thomas: The Synoptic Problem. A Bibliography 1716–1988.
New Gospel Studies 4. Mercer, Macon 1988, ISBN 0-86554-321-6
Frans Neirynck, J. Verheyden, R. Corstjens: The Gospel of Matthew and the Sayings Source
Q. A Cumulative Bibliography 1950–1995. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum
Lovaniensium 140. 2 volumes, University Press, Leuven 1998, ISBN 90-6186-933-1
David M. Scholer: Q Bibliography Supplement. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar papers.
Scholars Press, Atlanta 1965–2003, ISSN 0160-7588 (https://www.worldcat.org/search?fq=x0:j
rnl&q=n2:0160-7588). 127.1991, pp. 1ff.; 128.1992, pp. 1ff.; 129.1993, pp. 1ff.; 130.1994,
pp. 1ff.; 131.1995, pp. 1ff.; 132.1996, pp. 1ff.; 133.1997, pp. 750–56; 134.1998, pp. 1005–12;
Introduction

Studies

Marcus J. Borg, Thomas Moore (Eds.): The Lost Gospel Q: The Original Saying of Jesus.
Ulysses Press 1996, ISBN 1-56975-100-5
Maurice Casey: An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
Cambridge University Press 2002, ISBN 0-521-81723-4
Adolf von Harnack: Sprüche und Reden Jesu. Hinrichs, Leipzig 1907
Harry T. Fleddermann: Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary. Peeters Press, Leuven 2005,
ISBN 9042916567
Paul Hoffmann, Christoph Heil (Eds.): Die Spruchquelle Q. Studienausgabe Griechisch und
Deutsch. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 2002 (2nd edition 2007 / 3rd edition
2009 / 4th edition 2013), ISBN 978-3-534-26266-3
Frans Neirynck (Ed.): Q-synopsis. The Double Tradition Passages in Greek. Studiorum Novi
Testamenti Auxilia 13. University Press, Leuven 1988 (2nd expanded edition 1995, 2001),
ISBN 90-5867-165-8
Athanasius Polag: Fragmenta Q. Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1979/1982, ISBN 3-
7887-0541-8
James M. Robinson u.a. (Eds.): Documenta Q. Peeters, Leuven 1996ff. (up to now twelve
volumes: Q 4, 1–13 [1996], Q 6, 20–21 [2001], Q 6, 37–42 [2011], Q 7, 1–10 [2002], Q 11, 2b–
4 [1996], Q 11, 39–44 [2012], Q 11, 46–52 [2012], Q 12, 8–12 [1997], Q 12, 33–34 [2007], Q
12, 49–59 [1997], Q 13, 34–35 [2014], Q 22, 28.30 [1998]), ISBN 978-90-429-3053-7
James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, John S. Kloppenborg (Eds.): The Critical Edition of Q.
Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English,
German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas. Managing Editor: Milton C. Moreland.
Peeters Press, Leuven 2000, ISBN 978-90-429-0926-7 / Fortress Press, Minneapolis 2000,
ISBN 978-0-8006-3149-9
James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, John S. Kloppenborg (Eds.): The Sayings Gospel Q in
Greek and English with Parallels from the Gospels of Mark and Thomas. Managing Editor:
Milton C. Moreland. Peeters Press, Leuven 2001, ISBN 978-90-429-1056-0 / Fortress Press,
Minneapolis 2002, ISBN 978-0-8006-3494-0
 James M. Robinson (Ed.): The Sayings of Jesus: The Sayings Gospel Q in English. Fortress
Press, Minneapolis 2002, ISBN 978-0-8006-3451-3

External links
Text and on-line resources for the Lost Sayings Gospel Q (http://www.earlychristianwritings.co
m/q.html)
Internationales Q-Projekt (http://neues-testament.uni-graz.at/de/fwf-projekte-zu-q/international
es-q-projekt/)
The New Testament Gateway: Synoptic Problem Web Sites (http://ntgateway.com/synoptic/)
Q Web Materials (http://www.ntgateway.com/synoptic-problem-and-q/q-web-materials/)
Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "Jesu Logia ("Sayings of Jesus")" (https://en.wikisource.org/
wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Jesu_Logia_(%22Sayings_of_Jesus%22)). Catholic
Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Q_source&oldid=1175870082"