Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

FROM THE GOSPELS TO JESUS §7.4
More serious has been the failure to reckon fully with the complications
involved in the 'Q' hypothesis which continue to bedevil its developed use.
One is the fact that the letter 'Q', strictly speaking, can be used both for the
material which is actually common to Matthew and Luke and for the document
from which that material ex hypothesi has been drawn. 31 The other is that, as
Streeter and most commentators have noted, we can hardly exclude the likelihood
that Matthew drew on some material from this document which Luke ignored
and vice-versa. 32 In other words, the very definition of 'Q' (material
common to Matthew and Luke) prevents us from seeing the true extent of the
hypothesized source. 33 These concerns are met to a fair extent by arguing, 34
first, that the 'Q'/'q' material has a coherence and unity which implies a coherent
compositional strategy; 35 and second, that, on the parallel of Matthew's and
Luke's use of Mark, it can be judged likely that Matthew and Luke made use of
the bulk of 'Q' (that 'q' is most of 'Q'). 36 However, the fact remains that 'q'
material varies in agreement of wording very substantially, from nearly 100%
pel (Jesus 21-22, 221-50). And see now M. Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of
Jesus Christ (London: SCM, 2000) ch. 7, particularly 169-86, 205-207, who argues precisely
for Matthew's dependence on Luke (as well as on Mark), and who concludes that it is simply
impossible to reconstruct a sayings source (Q) (178, 206).
31. It might have been wiser to denote the actual common material as 'q\ reserving 'Q'
for the hypothesized written source, but it is too late to introduce such a refinement.
32. Examples suggested include Matt. 10.5b (Catchpole, Quest 165-71); 10.23
(H. Schürmann, 'Zur Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte von Mt 10,23', BZ 3 [1959] 82-
88); 11.28-30 (J. D. Crossan, Fragments: The Aphorisms of Jesus [San Francisco: Harper and
Row, 1983] 191-93); Luke 4.16-30 (H. Schürmann, Lukasevangelium [HTKNT 2 vols.;
Freiburg: Herder, 1969, 1994] 1.242; Tuckett, Q 227-28); 15.8-10 (Kloppenborg, Excavating Q
96-98); and 17.20-37 (R. Schnackenburg, 'Der eschatologische Abschnitt, Luke 17.20-37', in
A. Descamps and R. P. A. de Halleux, eds., Melanges bibliques, B. Rigaux FS [Gembloux:
Duculot, 1970] 213-34).
33. Note, e.g., the questions raised by A. Lindemann, 'Die Logienquelle Q: Fragen an
eine gut begründete Hypothese', in Lindemann, ed., Sayings Source Q 3-26 (here 4-13, 26).
34. Kloppenborg, Formation 80-95; Tuckett, Q 92-96.
35. See particularly A. D. Jacobson, 'The Literary Unity of Q', JBL 101 (1982) 365-89,
reprinted in J. S. Kloppenborg, ed., The Shape ofQ (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 98-115; also
Jacobson, The First Gospel: An Introduction to Q (Sonoma: Polebridge, 1992) ch. 4. The argument
was already made by T W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1949) 15-16;
cf. Streeter, Four Gospels 289-91.
36. But if Luke contains only about 60% of Mark, the argument becomes a little thin, despite
Kloppenborg's suggestion that Luke valued Q more highly than Mark, from which he deduces
that Luke would have preserved more of Q than he did of Mark (Formation 82). C. A. Evans
shows how diminished would be our appreciation of Mark if we had to depend only on
what was common to both Matthew and Luke ('Authenticating the Words of Jesus', in
B. Chilton and C. A. Evans, eds., Authenticating the Words of Jesus [Leiden: Brill, 1999] 3-14
[here 6-10]).
148