The letter 'Q' stands guard over a much discussed area in New Testament studies - that of the composition of the Gospels. Short for a German word Quelle, meaning source, New Testament scholars use the abbreviation to represent what many regard as an important and indispensable document behind our canonical gospels, a document written, allegedly, around AD50, containing the sayings of Jesus. This document, so the theory goes, was later consulted, edited and rearranged by the writers of the Gospel narratives for their own particular interests and purposes.

The reasons for alleging that the Q document existed as a source for the Gospel writers include the fact that there is much material (about 250 verses) common to the narratives of Matthew and Luke which is absent from Mark. There is also the fact that the ordering of events differs in Matthew and Luke. So although there is reason to believe that both Gospels show a measure of depend­ence upon each other, there is also room to posit the existence of other material which was also consulted and indigenised into the Synoptic records. The 'two-document' hypothesis of the composition of the Synoptic Gospels - that Matthew and Luke used the Marcan material and some other source - has been the consensus view in New Testament critical studies this century.

Source Criticism⤒🔗

The alleged existence of Q impinges upon two vitally important areas of study: the source criticism of the biblical text, and the so-called Synoptic Problem. As far as source criticism is concerned, there is no threat to the biblical doctrine of inspiration from the suggestion that the writers of the biblical text consulted such evidence as was available to them. In both the Old and the New Testaments, reference is made to the existence of contemporaneous documentation which was employed in the inscripturation of revelation. Whatever the Book of the wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14), the book of Jasher (2 Samuel 1:18), the book of the acts of Solo­mon (1 Kings 11:41), the book of Nathan the prophet and of Gad the seer (1 Chronicles 29:29) were, clearly use is being made of, and attention is being drawn to, noncanonical literature whose content bore upon the sacred text of the Word of God.

Similarly, in the New Testament, Luke is clearly referring in the prologue to his gospel, to material he has consulted and sources from which he has drawn his material. True, he does not specifically refer to written sources, but neither do his statements rule them out.

The doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures guards against Christianity being the product of 'cunningly devised fables' (2 Peter 1:16). To claim that the writers, under the superintendence of the Spirit of God, skillfully used sources, either written or oral, is no threat to the Bible being God's book. The threat comes only with the exclusion of the supernatu­ral altogether - with the claim that the biblical texts are merely the result of human redaction and editing. If the analogy of the Bible with the incarnation is correct - and it is only up to a point - then, as in the Person of the Saviour Himself, there is in the written word what is both fully divine and fully human. The fact that the New Testament writers consulted sources is testimony to the unique character of the Bible as Holy Scripture, fully the word of God, fully the words of men.

A Synoptic Problem?←⤒🔗

The question of the Synoptic problem is the wider issue of which the alleged role of Q is a part. The Synoptic Gospels - Matthew, Mark and Luke - have much common material between them. Why any of the writers should choose to omit certain strands of material and include others is a question to be determined by the critical study of the text. When was the material written? For what purpose? With what audience in mind?

Various theories have arisen as to the relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke: that all were dependent on an oral, Jerusalem-based source; that Matthew and Luke are both dependent on Mark and Q, the alleged sayings-document, that Luke is dependent on Matthew and Mark, that Mark is dependent on Luke and Matthew - and so on. The combinations and the variables seem to be endless. Eta Linneman, once a foremost Bultmannian scholar, now an evangelical teacher has asked (in a book of the title) Is there a Synoptic Problem?, and she accuses the scholarly world of 'rough handling' the word of God. She says:

The solution to the Synoptic Problem is the cornerstone of New Testament criticism. Remove it, and both form criticism and redaction criticism also collapse. I am shocked when I look at the books of my former colleagues, which I used to hold in highest esteem, and examine the justification for their position. Instead of proof I find only assertions.Is there a Synoptic Problem?, p10

The whole notion of literary dependence she finds unnecessary, and she suggests that the theory of the indispensability of literary de­pendence is bound up with "a faith decision by which one, consciously or unconsciously, contradicts faith in God as the Creator and Ruler of history and in his redemptive work" (p.159).

Perhaps Linneman has swung to too far an extreme in her revolt against the dialectic of Bultmann; but she has a point nonetheless. At the same time, the material which constitutes the back­ground to the Gospel records, and of which use has undoubtedly been made in the compilation of the narrative, demands serious study.

Whether or not Q existed as a sepa­rate collection of sayings of Jesus, and of which the Synoptists made use, is debatable. While some have insisted that some additional source material is necessary, and others have attempted to write a theology of the Q material (see Carson, Moo and Morris, An Introduc­tion to the New Testament, pp.34ff), others are more sceptical. "The very elusive nature of its bounds and the silence of antiquity contribute to the uncertainty of its existence", wrote Lewis Foster in 1964. These are still the weightiest arguments against Q. Mark Goodacre has written on the Internet that,

Current literature on Q abounds with editions of Q, investigation into its strata, studies of the communities that were behind it and analyses of their theology. In such circumstances, it is worth allow­ing ourselves the sober reminder that there is no manuscript of Q in existence. No-one has yet found even a fragment of Q.

To this Goodacre adds several other arguments of weight, not least the fact that "Belief in Q has been an impediment to the proper appreciation of Luke's literary ability". Nothing is clearer in the New Testament than that the writers were truly able to write. The consensus view seems to be that Q is not worth the paper it's not written on.

The Nature of Scholarship←⤒🔗

But the debate over Q does illustrate the mould of contemporary biblical scholar­ship. Nurtured in the womb of Kantian dialectic and Kierkegaardian existential­ism, modern theological science can easily become "a seductive system of self-realization and reciprocal confirma­tion" (Is there a Synoptic Problem?, p21) as Linneman puts it. In other words, the world of theological scholarship exists not so much to discover truth (for objective truth does not, apparently, exist), but to push forward the frontiers of theory. Scholarship perpetuates itself; and nothing is more inimical to true theological inquiry than the recurring quest for originality. The more the boundaries of existing knowledge can be broken by positing new theories and by claiming new results, the more the process of self-justification continues.

There is, however, a legitimate scientific theological quest that must engage those who have an evangelical worldview and a biblical view of the sacred texts. The balance between working within parameters of modern theological enquiry and at the same time pursuing an evangelical study of theology is difficult to maintain, but it must, and can be done. Salt and light are needed in New College as well as in New St Andrews House.

Whose are the Writings?←⤒🔗

There is, however, an even more fundamental issue, highlighted in the first chapter of the Confession. That is that the Bible was given to the people of God, "for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church", as well as for the preservation of the truth. While the leading theologians and churchmen of our Lord's Day gave Him the most difficulty, the common people heard Him gladly.

The Bible, whose sacred texts furnish theological researchers with no end of material, was not given primarily for that reason. It was given so that the ordinary Christian might enjoy extraordinary blessings and privileges through the living word. An interesting story is told of George Adam Smith, who, for all his acceptance of the higher critical movement and its conclusions, had a reputation in his day as a warm evangelical preacher. He preached on one occasion in Skye. "How did you like the professor's sermon?" a Skye woman was asked. "That preacher was not a professor;" she replied, "he was not trying to take our Bible from us". The legacy of the scholarly debates of the nineteenth century had left the feeling that the theological halls and colleges were destructive of all that was good and all that was best of biblical teaching. The Skye woman reckoned that Smith could not be a Professor, so much did he commend the Bible to his listeners that day.

Discussions over sources like Q, and a myriad other questions thrown up in current theological debate, must be modified in the interests of those for whom and to whom the Word was originally given, to be a light to their feet and a lamp to their path. The Synoptic Gospels furnish us with the example of Jesus Christ, in whose steps the church must walk, and by whose life the church is to be fed. It is all too easy for those who want the simplicity of Gospel preaching to decry the need for serious theological engagement in the questions of the day. But it is also all too easy for those who are interested in questions of theological scholarship to forget the day to day needs of the disciples of Christ.

It may be that the church is still having to cope with the legacy of a distrust of scholarship, inherited from the debacles of the late nineteenth century. But we nonetheless have a mandate to go into the whole world to make disciples. And that includes the University. And the University still has a mandate to train not experts in the Q-source, but shepherds after God's heart who will feed the flock.

A Prerequisite←⤒🔗

Harold Greenlee, whose Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism has recently been republished, writes that

NT textual criticism is the basic Biblical study, a prerequisite to all other Biblical and theological work. Interpreta­tion, systematization and application of the teachings of the NT cannot be done until textual criticism has done at least some of its work.

Which reminds us, at the very least, of the introductory nature of biblical criticism. It is only the door into a richer appreciation and a willing obedience to the truth claims of Scrip­ture.

The Pharisees were masters in the art of Biblical Criticism. The trouble was that by it, they had made the Word of God of no effect, virtually closing the door to any personal engagement with the Messiah of God.

Something similar is happening in theology in the Universities, with debates over Q, and similar areas of critical investigation becoming ends in them­selves rather than means towards the end of daily service and obedience to Jesus Christ. All our intellectual pursuits must have such service as their goal.

Our Great Need←⤒🔗

There is in the Free Church today little danger of much learning making us mad. Other things are doing that. But there is great danger of our neglecting the call to act as leaven, salt and light. The Goliath of modem scholarship still leaves the armies of Israel in awe. Before him, and before God, we have no right to withdraw.