The Lost Sayings Gospel Q
Home > Other Christian Text Sources > The Lost Sayings Gospel Q The Lost Sayings Gospel Q At a Glance Treatise Genre: (2/5) ** Reliability of Dating: (2/5) ** Length of Text: Greek Original Language: Ancient Translations: Modern Translations: Estimated Range of Dating: 40-80 A.D. Chronological List of Early Christian Writings Discuss this text on the Early Writings forum. Text The Contents of Q A Synopsis for Q Gregory Riley: NRSV Translation of Q according to Funk/Miller Resources The Existence of Q The Sayings Gospel Q: a Bibliography (By Rick Fowler) Offsite Links The Critical Text of Q IQP Q Text Burton Mack's Translation Stevan Davies: Q Sayings in Luke Stevan Davies: Q // Thomas Parallels The Five Gospels Parallels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas; English) Parallel Synoptic Table (Matthew, Mark, Luke; Greek) The Synoptic Problem (Defense of the Two Source Hypothesis) The Two Source Hypothesis (Summary by Stephen Carlson) The Case Against Q (Against the Two Source Hypothesis) Review of Goodacre's The Case Against Q by Kloppenborg Verbin The Gospel of Thomas and Q (By Mark Goodacre) The Current State of Q (By Nancy R.
Heisey) The Canonical Status of Q (By Mahlon Smith) Testing Temptation: The Meaning of Q 11:4b (By Jeffrey Gibson) Jesus' Death in Q (By David Seeley) Blessings and Boundaries: Interpretations of Jesus' Death in Q (by David Seeley) The Search for a No-Frills Jesus (By Charlotte Allen) The Real Jesus of the Sayings "Q" Gospel (By James M. Robinson) The Gospel of Q (By B.A. Robinson) Q & Its Late Dating (By Bernard Muller) William Arnal's Summary of Kloppenborg's Q Stratification The Lost Gospel of Q: Fact or Fantasy? (By Eta Linnemann) Books John S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press 1987).
Burton L. Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins 1993). Christopher M. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q (Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1996). Marcus J. Borg, The Lost Gospel Q : The Original Sayings of Jesus (Publishers' Group West 1999) John S. Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press 2000) Mark Goodacre, The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Pr Int 2002) Recommended Books for the Study of Early Christian Writings Information on the Lost Sayings Gospel Q According to the Two Source Hypothesis accepted by a majority of contemporary scholars, the authors of Matthew and Luke each made use of two different sources: the Gospel of Mark and a non-extant second source termed Q.
The siglum Q derives from the German word "Quelle," which means "Source." Q primarily consists of the "double tradition" material, that which is present in both Matthew and Luke but not Mark. However, Q may also contain material that is preserved only by Matthew or only by Luke (called "Sondergut") as well as material that is paralleled in Mark (called Mark/Q overlaps). Although the temptation story and the healing of the centurion's son are usually ascribed to Q, the majority of the material consists of sayings. For this reason, Q is sometimes called the Synoptic Sayings Source or the Sayings Gospel. Some scholars have observed that the Gospel of Thomas and the Q material, as contrasted with the four canonical gospels, are similar in their emphasis on the sayings of Jesus instead of the passion of Jesus.
Arguments in favor of the Two Source Hypothesis can be found in the essay on The Existence of Q. On the matter of whether Q was written, Tuckett writes (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 568): "The theory that Q represents a mass of oral traditions does not account for the common order in Q material, which can be discerned once Matthew's habit of collecting related material into his large teaching discourses is discounted (Taylor 1953, 1959). Such a common order demands a theory that Q at some stage existed in written form." C. M. Tuckett comments on the argument that variations between Matthew and Luke are due to variant translations of an Aramaic Q (op. cit., pp. 567-568): It is doubtful if more than a very few cases of variation between Matthew and Luke can be explained in this way.