Q source
[6] Omitting what should have been a highly treasured dominical document from all early Church catalogs, its lack of mention by Jerome is a conundrum of modern Biblical scholarship.
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.
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).
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.
[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.
[19] 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.
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 rabbi, though not all members affirm the two-source hypothesis.
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.
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.
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.
Some scholars, however, believe it can be partially reconstructed by examining elements common to Matthew and Luke (but absent from Mark).
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?
[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.
[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.
[citation needed] 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.
