Christianity is defined primarily on the basis of the New Testament gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John¹. They are traditionally seen as the founding documents of the faith because they claim to chronicle the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, the faith’s founder and ultimate hero. The problem is that Mark, the earliest gospel², was not written until sometime after 70 CE, forty plus years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. During that interval of time the Jesus movement was founded and began to evolve into what would eventually become a new religion. What exactly went on during that crucial time period was, until recently, a historical void. But, Bible scholars claim to have uncovered an important clue revealing how the earliest Christians viewed Jesus and, perhaps more importantly, how they perceived his mission.

The striking similarities in structure, content, and wording of Matthew, Mark, and Luke gave rise in the late eighteenth century to their designation as the "Synoptic" gospels (from the Greek synoptikos, "seen together,"³). The almost word-for-word agreement of these three Gospels occurs to far too great an extent to be accounted for in translations and revisions, not to mention the agreement in the order of the various passages as can be seen in parallel arrangement⁴. However, Matthew and Luke diverge radically in their accounts of the birth of Jesus and his resurrection, neither of which appears in Mark⁵.

In addition to their commonality with Mark, there are, approximately 225 verses⁶ duplicated in Matthew and Luke that were not derived from Mark where there is nothing comparable. Where did this information originate? The only acceptable answer to this question is that the writers of Matthew and Luke had in their possession a body of early Christian literature now lost. This lost document, believed to have been a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus, has recently been reconstructed by way of an in-depth literary analysis of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. By what title this document was known to the Jesus followers of that day will in all probability never be known. Therefore, for a want of any thing better its discoverers titled it Quelle (German for source.) It is referred to throughout academia simply by its abbreviated title, "Q". But, by whatever name it may be called, Q, believed by scholars to date from around 40 CE⁷, stands today as Christianity’s earliest document.

The intent of this essay is to present a brief summary in layman’s terms of the important conclusions and implications the discovery of Q brings to bear on our understanding of the true origin of the Christian religion. In doing so, I have consulted and utilized the publications of recognized scholars in the fields of theology, history and literary analysis. Because it has been concluded that Luke better preserves the Q order⁸, all references to Q passages will be given herein as Lukan citations

The popular conception of Jesus as he is portrayed in the narrative gospels is that he was indeed the long awaited Jewish messiah and savior whose divine mission was to reform the religion of Judaism thereby bringing the Jews back to their true God, Yahweh. However, Q challenges this claim. The harsh truth is that Q forces the issue of rethinking Christian origins as has nothing else even including the puzzling ignorance of Paul⁹. Based on what we have learned from Q, the entire conventional concept of early Christian history stands in dire need of a drastic revision. Q shows no knowledge of the passion story or the resurrection as given in the gospels. Q in no way treats Jesus' death as salvific, and shows no knowledge of other Pauline ideas such as a mission to the gentiles or Christianity as a new world-wide religion.

Unlike the narrative gospels of the New Testament, Q, like the recently recovered Gospel of Thomas, was a collection of disconnected sayings attributed to Jesus. Q was apparently revised over time so that three different levels of editing, reorganization and possibly redaction, are recognized. They are early (Q¹), middle (Q²) and late (Q³)¹⁰. Q¹ is composed of sayings that can only be described as wisdom or "sapiential." They are characterized as tolerant and often enlightening though perhaps not always practical. These sayings were arranged so as to provide instructions for living a meaningful and productive life amidst perilous times characterized by uncertainty and fraught with danger. For example, Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, containing many of Christianity‘s most hallowed wisdom teachings, is mostly a collection of Q¹ sayings presented in a fictional setting^11. Although Luke presents a much reduced version of this sermon, it also was derived from Q¹.

Q² sayings show a distinct change of character from that of Q¹. They can only be described as prophetic or even apocalyptic in nature. They issue a bitter condemnation of the outside world for its hostility and rejection, and they prophesy in no uncertain terms a coming upheaval followed by a dreadful day of judgment as the world ends. A good example is Luke 10:13-15 promising woes aplenty for unrepentant sinners.

Q³, the final and most recent layer of the document, consists of a few sayings that do not fit neatly with either of the other two. Q³ shows stirrings of a biography or even a touch of divinity. The story of the temptation of Jesus (Luke 4:1.) is one example, as is the saying about the Son who knows the Father (Luke 10:22). However, Q³ does show that the people of Q survived the devastating Judeo/Roman war of 66 CE to 70 CE.

In assembling their stories the gospel writers, apparently without realizing it, created a perplexing question. If Jesus was so convinced that the world was poised on the brink of total destruction in accordance with his prophecies in Mark 9:1, Matthew 10:23, 16:28, 24:33-34, Luke 21:27-28,32, and Revelations 22:7, 12, 22, what was the point in all of those wisdom teachings about living a virtuous life?

"What ever happened to Q," one might ask? In that regard, it is reasonable to suspect that upon being incorporated into the narrative gospels of Matthew and Luke, Q was no longer needed. It became obsolete and was eventually lost and forgotten as the acceptance of the narrative gospels spread throughout late first century Christian communities. But the question remains, "What does Q tell us about the beliefs of the first Christians and, perhaps more importantly, does it support gospel claims?"

The discovery of Q has resulted in a radical, and to some devastating, rethinking of Christian origins as it is traditionally taught in most seminaries, churches and Sunday schools. For example, Jesus' resurrection from the dead and the promise of eternal life, perhaps the most important element of the entire Christian belief system, is nowhere to be found in Q. Also, in Q there is no mention of a trial and crucifixion, both of which are essential elements of the gospel stories. Another glaring Q omission is any mention of Mary, Joseph and/or the virgin birth, so crucial to the gospel claim of divine sonship. There is no reference in Q to the famous "Last Supper" at which the Eucharist, an essential Christian ritual, was established. Nowhere among the Q sayings is there any mention of Jesus’ emotionally charged words as he was dying on the cross nor to his defiant words before the high priest. If these things had really happened, surely the Q community would have heard of them. What all of this seems to indicate is that Jesus was seen by the earliest Christians not as a divine prophet and the long expected Jewish messiah as he is depicted in the gospels, but simply as a teacher and a sage in the Cynic tradition. In fact, such words as "messiah," "savior," and "Christ" never appear in Q.

At this point it might be appropriate to ask, "If Q is so relevant to the understanding of true Christian origins, why haven’t we heard more about it?" The answer lies in the fact that unlike the dramatic discoveries at Oxyrhynchus, Nag Hammadi and Qumron, all of which were heralded far and wide in popular media, Q emerged relatively slowly over several generations of scholarly research, analyses and debate thereby attracting little or no media attention. However, in recent years, beginning perhaps with the publication in 1987 of The Formation of Q by the Canadian scholar, John Kloppenborg, the awareness of Q has begun to spread out from the seminaries and universities into the pulpits and congregations and thus to the general public. The result is that sooner or later the Christian establishment will have to face the Q question and deal with it realistically.

Dedicated Bible believers will undoubtedly find the results difficult if not impossible to accept. But, like water ominously rising behind an old, leaky dam, Q threatens to come gushing forth engulfing and forever altering our concept of Christianity, especially its credibility. The consequences could be devastating for many, especially for those who have invested their faith exclusively in the Christian belief system to the exclusion of everything else.

The lessons of Q can no longer be contained solely within scholarly, academic circles as before. If Q forces Bible scholars and historians of religion to revise their understanding of early Christian history, a literate public should be made aware of it. The New Testament gospels can no longer be seen as trustworthy accounts of a unique historical event, a cultural landmark surpassing in importance even the discovery of fire, the wheel, and agriculture. The earthly sojourn of the god/man, Jesus, stands, according to the gospels, as a watershed of unequaled proportions from which all time, before and after, is to be reckoned. Are such extravagant claims supported by Q? Not at all! When placed in its proper historical context, Q forces the recognition of the fact that the New Testament gospels have the ring of fiction. If the message of Q is taken seriously, as it surely should be, the gospels can only be seen as the result of nothing more than creative mythmaking. The writer of Mark took the widely accepted pagan martyr myth of the dying/rising savior god as his basic plot and proceeded to weave it into a story about Jesus. The later gospel writers adopted Mark’s basic plan with some significant additions and elaborations. Thus, an emotionally compelling story was invented of a crucified savior who was no less than the son of God. He was born of a virgin in the best pagan tradition. His mission was salvation for the masses. But he was rejected by an ungrateful people and put to death. However, the final victory was his when he rose from the dead and after appearing to many he was observed ascending directly into heaven where he now busies himself making plans to return to earth someday in vindication and glory. Q, however, documents an earlier history of the founding of the Christian movement that is altogether different. Q has the ring of authenticity.

In conclusion it might be well to consider the true implications of Q. What is this document from the distant past telling us? Is it possible that Christianity - - the thought simply boggles the mind - - but, is it really conceivable that this once powerful religious institution which arose in the middle east some two thousand years ago destined to eventually conquer Rome and the entire western world - - whose power was so awesome that its leaders could with a word create empires, depose kings and command generals while amassing untold wealth - - is in reality a hoax and a fraud built on nothing more than fiction, myths, false promises, intimidation, brainwashing and calculated lies? Oh, perish the thought!

_____________________________________________________________________

2 In 1835 K. Lachmann, a German Bible scholar, pointed out that Matthew and Luke agree only when they also agree with Mark and that where material is introduced that is not in Mark, not only do Matthew and Luke disagree sometimes widely, it is inserted in different places. On the basis of this analysis it is concluded that Mark predates both Matthew and Luke.

3 Encyclopedia Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition.

6 Mack, Burton L., The Lost Gospel, Q, page 21.

7 Ibid. See Appendix A

8 Doherty, Earl; The Jesus Puzzle, page 145.

9 See The Mystery of Paul's Ignorance on this web site.

10 Mack, Burton.L., The Lost Gospel, Harper San Francisco,  1993.

11 See The Sermon on the Mount on this web site.