Q, the Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus

by John S. Kloppenborg

Estimated to date back to the very early Jesus movement, the lost Gospel known as Q offers a distinct and remarkable picture of Jesus and his significance--and one that differs markedly from that offered by its contemporary, the apostle Paul. Q presents Jesus as a prophetic critic of unbelief and a sage with the wisdom that can transform. In Q, the true meaning of the "kingdom of God" is the fulfillment of a just society through the transformation of the human relationships within it. Though this document has never been found, John Kloppenborg offers a succinct account of why scholars maintain it existed in the first place and demonstrates how they have been able to reconstruct its contents and wording from the two later Gospels that used it as a Matthew and Luke. Presented here in its entirety, as developed by the International Q Project, this Gospel reveals a very different portrait of Jesus than in much of the later canonical writings, challenging the way we think of Christian origins and the very nature and mission of Jesus Christ.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, Christianity, Christian History, Spirituality

184 pages, Paperback

First published September 15, 2008

About the author

John S. Kloppenborg is university professor and chair of the Department for the Study of Religion at the University of Toronto. A specialist in Christian origins, he has written extensively on the Synoptic Sayings Gospel (Q) and the parables of Jesus.

Reviews

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent base-level explanation of what "Q," short for the German "Quelle," is, as the hypothetical second source, beyond the Gospel of Mark, for the composition of Matthew and Luke, in the "two-source" theory of composition of the three Synoptic Gospels. (The birth and resurrection stories from them were at one time considered written sources for a "four-source" theory, but Kloppenborg notes that's been largely abandoned as we can't prove that.)

The two-source theory is the strongly majoritarian theory for the interrelationship of these three gospels in biblical criticism today. Nonetheless, in the past 50 years, there's been a resurgence of alternative theories. These other theories generally attack the two-source theory on a few main points:
1. Rejecting ideas that Mt/Lk improved Mk's Greek style.
2. Bringing up the so-called "minor agreements between Mt and Lk, cases where they have edited Mk's language and come to the same editing conclusion.
3. Rejecting ideas Mt/Lk improved, expanded on, or further developed Mk's theology. (This is not as common a line of attack.)
See my review of Delbert Burkett's 2018 book for more on this approach, and my comments about his pushing this.

Kloppenborg focuses on the second point, after touching on the first and, by silence, taking the third as a given.

He notes there are four explanations for this, and that no one of them needs to cover all the minor agreements. (Burkett also talks about minor similarities and sometimes conflates the two.)
1. Coincidental redaction.
2. Oral "interference," as in oral traditions that were available to both Mt/Lk that didn't totally agree with Mk.
3. A "deutero-Mark" that was a "second edition," and is the version Mt/Lk used.
4. Scribal conflation. Our first manuscripts of Mt and Lk are both about a century older than their date of composition, and the oldest Mk manuscript is two centuries later. Scribal "smoothing" and "harmonization" is certainly possible.

He also discusses Mark/Q overlap issues in this chapter.

The next chapter constructs what Q looked like in general. (An appendix, with editorial mark-ups, has the suggested actual document.)

The chapter after that suggests the "Deuteronomic history" of the Tanakh/Old Testament might have been a theological frame for Q's author interpreting Jesus.

After that, he notes how the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas shed some light on Q in particular, and more so on the possibility of "Q-type gospels." Along with this, he notes the theological issues this raises, with a sayings gospel not having a passion story, a "soteriology," etc. He adds that its post-death implicit focus might be on an "assumption" similar to that of Enoch and Elijah. He also brings in the Didache. He also pulls in the letter of James here. (His take is NOT that it was written by a "Paulinizing" author.)

==

While it is 5 stars here, it's really 4.5-ish but getting a bump due to some low ratings. His discussion of "debt" in the Mt version of the Lord's Prayer within a Q theology of economics and need goes against his comparison with the Mt version earlier in the book. He also undercuts normal rendering of Q by Luke first by later in the book translating the Lord's Prayer in Q 11:2-4 with "debts," which comes from Matthew, not Luke. He does the same in his appendix reconstruction of Q instead of identifying it as Q/Matt, which is the normal tool when the Matthean version of Q is considered to be the one that should be followed.. This isn't quite kosher.

Second, I don't totally agree with his take on James.

Third, on discussion of the passion and its relevance to all three synoptics, he considers only the idea that Jesus was killed on Passover or on the day before. (In other words, Hyam Maccoby need not apply.)

[Gabriel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Uma boa introdução às várias hipóteses que tentam resolver o problema sinótico. A análise literária é bem honesta e razoável, mas o que Kloppenborg tenta extrair de conclusão da possibilidade de um documento com logias de Jesus me parece uma extrapolação muito maior do que a evidência permite.

[Linda Snow]

No rating for Jesus scholarship, but this one definitely furthered my grasp of the Q material.

[Susan Rigetti · Rating 5 out of 5]

this was a really cool read

[Bob Buice · Rating 3 out of 5]

Scholars of theology are essentially universal in their agreement that the Gospel According to St. Mark, composed in the ninth decade of the first century, was the first gospel written. Gospels According to St. Matthew and St. Luke were written at least a decade later, with Matthew appearing first. The authors of each gospel are anonymous, but the authors of Matthew and Luke quite obviously used Mark as a source. In fact, 45% of Matthew and 41% of Luke are comprised of passages that are very similar, if not identical, to passages in Mark. However, there are passages comprising 25% of Matthew and 23% of Luke that are likewise similar, if not identical, but do not appear in Mark. Scholars have postulated that these verses came from another source, now known as the Q gospel (Q from the German “quelle” meaning source). In “Q, the Earliest Gospel”, John Kloppenborg makes a convincing, albeit somewhat boring, argument that the Q gospel did exist, was written mid-first century, and is now lost to history. His relatively short account (184 pages) reflects an in-depth knowledge of the topic, but reads like a technical report, requiring the reader to use scratch paper and pen to follow his arguments.

For those who have an interest in the development of the scriptures, this book is highly informative. However, I did not find it an enjoyable read. In fact, I put it away for a while and then returned to it.

[John Kight · Rating 5 out of 5]

John S. Kloppenborg is Professor of Religion and Chair of the Department of Religion at the University of Toronto. He received both an M.A. and Ph.D. in New Testament and Early Christian Literature from the University of St. Michael’s College, where he completed his doctoral work under Heinz O. Guenther on the literary genre of the synoptic sayings source. Kloppenborg has since authored numerous books, including Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes & Concordance (Polebridge Press, 1988), The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Fortress Press, 1987), Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Fortress Press, 2000), A Critical Edition of Q (with James M. Robinson and Paul Hoffman; Fortress Press, 2000), and the focus of the present review, Q, The Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus (Westminster John Knox, 2010).

Today, Kloppenborg is considered by many in the field to be one of the world’s leading experts on the Q source. The issues surrounding Q can be especially complex for the average reader who is unfamiliar with the synoptic problem and the conversations therein. Of course, this makes the task of creating a widely accessible introduction particularly challenging, as it requires beyond average familiarity with practically every corner of this scholarly discussion. It is here, I believe, that Q, The Earliest Gospel has provided something special for readers of all interest levels to engage. Kloppenborg attentively guides the reader through four fundamental questions—why should we think there was a Q? What did Q look like? What difference does Q make? And what happened to Q?—and provides the reader with ample interaction and examples to evaluate therein. This latter aspect of the book is invaluable for those who are newer to the Q conversation and provides a basis with which to weigh much of Kloppenborg’s conclusions. Lastly, to the benefit of the reader, Kloppenborg closes the book with an English translation of the Critical Edition of Q that has been slightly modified in translation and noted where he differs with the editors.

Q, The Earliest Gospel: An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus by John S. Kloppenborg is still one of the best introductions to Q on the market. Kloppenborg is well-qualified for the task and the fruit of his labor shows on nearly every page. Personally, I entered this review with an open mind but largely unconvinced by previous attempts at positing the existence of Q within the synoptic problem. Kloppenborg’s presentation was much better than the past attempts and I think that he may have even moved me forward towards his conclusion, but I am still largely unconvinced upon exit. Maybe I will give it another read with a keener ear towards evaluation. Nevertheless, if you are interested in investigating the various questions related to Q, for the first time or thirty-first time, Kloppenborg’s volume is the best entry point on the market and well worth the investment. It comes highly recommended!

I received a review copy of this book in exchange for an honest review. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.

[dave dykhouse]

although entirely hypothetical, the Q documentary source was an important step in the literary analysis of the 4 canonical gospels and their relationship to each other. although mark is putatively the earliest gospel (but still written after 64 a.d. and interestingly after st. paul had lived and died), matthew and luke drew heavily upon mark's gospel and the Q source which consisted entirely of sayings directly attributed to jesus. are ya still with me? at any rate, the actual sayings of jesus were interpreted and re-constructed by the later church, so the Q source provides a refreshing look at what jesus probably actually said as opposed to what people were compelled to believe he said. remember, literacy was the exclusive province of the priestly class then, so an early collection of the oral tradition is invaluable.

[Jc · Rating 4 out of 5]

For those interested in the background history of what became the christian cult, this is an important work. A discussion of one of the two major theoretical sources for the gospel writings of Matthew and Luke (and possibly John), and hence for the ideas that led to christianity. [The other major source appears to be the writings now known as Mark’s Gospel.] An introductory background in 1st & 2nd century textual analysis would help understanding the author's arguments. But, if you are into that sort of thing then this is a must read. Filled in a lot of the gaps in my knowledge.

[I gave it only 4 stars to mostly to alert people that if this is NOT your subject, or if you believe that some god magically created religion, then this book is NOT for you.]

[Beth Kakuma-Depew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Okay, if you want a detailed comparison of the three Synoptic gospels and an in-depth discussion of the literary theory that leads to the Q hypothesis, then read this. Personally I skimmed the first chapter. The author does emphasis that 2000 years ago most people were illiterate, and so a written list of sayings would have been more of a prompt for oral recitations, NOT something read and studied as we do today.

[Joe Edd Morris]

Excellent and scholarly