Friday, February 12, 2010

NT Pod 25: Q

NT Pod episode 25 introduces the arguments for the existence of "Q", the hypothetical source that lies behind the double tradition material in Matthew and Luke. It is the third of our four back-to-back episodes on the Synoptic Problem.

It is twelve minutes long. Feel free to leave your comments below.

NT Pod 25: Q (mp3)

NT Pod 25: Q (mp3) (Alternative location)

See also: NT Pod 23: What is the Synoptic Problem?, NT Pod 24: Was Mark the First Gospel? and NT Pod 26 (forthcoming). See also the extended episodes of the NT Pod.

Thanks to Ram2000, Me and You, for the opening theme, released under a Creative Commons agreement.


  1. Interesting. This is all mostly new to me so I looked it up at Wikipedia and saw a link to a paper by the guy you mentioned in another post - "Is Q a Juggernaut?" by Michael D. Goulder.

  2. Hi Mark,

    One thing I don't understand about Q is that the content of this gospel doesn't seem to always match the definition in some significant places. For example, wouldn't Q include post-resurrection appearances to the eleven (Mt 28:16, Lk 24:36), and some bits of virgin birth and genealogy? I would think so assuming: Q exists, it includes all Matthew-Luke agreements not in Mark, and Mark originally ended at the empty tomb. Yet none of the published versions of Q I am aware of include that material.

    Is there a reason for that?

    Thanks much,

  3. Yes, good point. I think that those are among the problems for a Luke who writes independently of Matthew. I think that Q theorists would generally say that the parallels in these places are not close enough to suggest an origin in Q, but that of course leaves open the question of the cause of the parallels.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. Playing armchair Q theorist, I would say Q includes post-resurrection lightening-men and Jesus appearances, and Matthew and or Luke heavily redacted their source. The sermons on the mount and plain seem to show similar redactive liberty.

    To my untrained eye the parallels are too close to completely dismiss without positing yet another source, which seems inelegant, or dispensing with Q.

  6. Thanks, Sean. Certainly the connections between Matthew and Luke in the resurrection narratives require some explanation if they are independent of one another.

  7. Hi there! thanks for your excellent podcasts.. just thought i'd mention that the podcast that plays above is number 26, against Q. You have to click on one of the alternative links to get 25. Is this just my computer?

    1. Thanks, Cecily. You're right! I've fixed the problem. Cheers.