Rethinking the Arguments for Q and the Criteria for Identifying It

Harry Fleddermann offers five arguments for the existence of Q (verbal agreements, agreement in order, doublets, priority discrepancy, and internal coherence), but both Q scholars and Q skeptics have elevated the first of these arguments to the neglect of the others. Q scholars have done so in letting the double tradition largely dictate the contents of Q. Q skeptics have done so in assuming that if dependence of Luke upon Matthew (or vice versa) can be demonstrated, then Q becomes “unnecessary.” This paper will consider the five arguments for Q, demonstrate the weaknesses in an over-reliance on verbal agreements, show the strength of the other four arguments, and add a neglected sixth argument for Q that is the most important indicator of the contents of Q. The result is a more robust case for the existence of Q and an improved method for determining the contents of Q.