About Q (Quelle)
About he Q source (Quelle)
Front page: Jesus, a historical reconstruction (with website search function)
You may email the author, and learn more about him here
Note: all emphases are mine.

GMark verses or wording are in navy blue.

A) Demonstrating (against Farrer/Goodacre's hypothesis) Q was a document and  "Luke" did not know GMatthew

1) The "missing block"

It has been noticed gLuke does not incorporate any material from Mk 6:47 to 8:27a (except for one saying: see next note), a total of 74.5 verses. It is called the great omission (the "missing block").
This includes, in succession, 'Jesus walks on water', 'Jesus in the region of Gennesaret', 'clean and unclean', 'the faith of the Syro-Phoenician woman', 'the healing of the deaf and mute man', 'Jesus feeds the four thousand', 'the leaven of the Pharisees' and 'the healing of a blind man at Bethsaida'.
The next largest block of consecutive verses not included in GLuke is the 13 verses of 'John the Baptist beheaded' (Mk 6:17-29). But the execution of John is mentioned in Lk 9:7-9, at the same corresponding location, right after 'Jesus sends out the twelve' (Mk 6:6a-13, Lk 9:1-6) and just before 'the miraculous feeding of the five thousand' (Mk 6:30-44, Lk 9:10-17).

Let's look at the "missing block" (Mk 6:45-8.27a and also Mk 14:24-16:13a) in GLuke.

Walking on Water:
NOT in GLuke, but in Mk 6:45-52 & Mt 14:14-33 (both in "missing block")

Healings at Gennesaret:
NOT in GLuke, but in Mk 6:53-56 & Mt 14:34-36 (both in "missing block")

What Defiles A Person (Clean And Unclean):
NOT in GLuke, but in Mk 7:1-23 & Mt 15:10-20 (both in "missing block")

Syrophoenician Woman:
NOT in GLuke, but in Mk 7:24-30 & Mt 15:21-28 (both in "missing block")

Feeding of the Four Thousand:
NOT in GLuke, but in Mk 8:1-10 & Mt 15:32-38 (both in "missing block")

Pharisees Seek A Sign:
In Mk 8:11-12 (in "missing block") and (considerably extended with common elements: see next note) Lk 11:29 & Mt 12:38-42

Leaven of the Pharisees:
In Lk 12:1 & Mk 8:14-21 & Mt 16:6-12,11b (both in "missing block")

Blind Men of Bethsaida:
NOT in GLuke & GMatthew, but in Mk 8:22-26 (in "missing block")

It certainly looks that "Luke" did not know about the "missing block" in GMark & GMatthew (for GMark, I explained why the "missing block" was expurgated from Luke's copy.

Note: If "Luke" did not know about the "missing block" from GMark & GMatthew, then from where she would get the saying about the 'Leaven of the Pharisees'?

2) 'Ierousalem' in gMatthew

The authors of gospels made use of two spellings for Jerusalem, 'Hierosolyma' and 'Ierousalem'. "Luke" & "Mark" employed both, and "John" used only 'Hierosolyma'. What about "Matthew"? He utilized 'Hierosolyma' eleven times and 'Ierousalem' twice in 23:37. It just happens Mt 23:37 has a the counterpart in Lk 13:34 which also features 'Ierousalem' twice. And all the eleven occurrences of 'Hierosolyma' in GMatthew are in Markan or Matthean material. Therefore, with "Matthew" being consistent with 'Hierosolyma', Mt 23:37 (& Lk 13:34) is very likely to have been copied from a different source, Q: for twelve verses, there is only a 8% chance that would happen by coincidence.

Note: Mt 23:37 (in the Temple) is located differently of Lk 13:34 (on the way to Jerusalem). Nothing to conclude here, but if both sayings were similarly placed in one of the two locations, then that would be a strong argument for "Luke" knowing about gMatthew (or "Matthew" knowing about GLuke).
Also the Centurion in Capernaum pericope is differently textually placed in Lk 7:6-10 (after the miracles in Capernaum) and Mt 8:5-13 (before the miracles in Capernaum).

3) Aramaic evidence

a) Let's consider: Lk 11:41a:
"But give alms inwardly, and behold, all things are clean to you."
A scholar, Wellhausen, suggested that the Aramaic word dakkau (to cleanse, purify) was misread as zakkau (to give alms)
Then, if Lk 11:41 was a mistranslation from the Aramaic, we would have near concordance with:
Mt 23:26 "... First cleanse the inside of the cup, that the outside also may be clean".
Let's compare it with the "corrected":
Lk 11:41a "But cleanse inwardly, and behold, all things are clean to you."
The "corrected" version would make more sense because, in Lk 11:39b, what is inward is "greed and wickedness" and NOT goods for the poor:
Lk 11:39-40a "... Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people! ..."
Let's compare it to the parallel Q passage in GMatthew:
Mt 23:25 "... you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence."

b) Let's also consider:
Lk 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother ... brothers and sisters ..., he cannot be my disciple".
First, let's examine the parallel saying from "Matthew":
Mt 10:37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me."
In the later gospel, "hates" is replaced by "loves", the negation removed and a "more" clause added. As a result, the saying makes some sense, and very much in tune with:
Mk 3:32-35 "...they said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You." But He answered them, saying, "Who is My mother, or My brothers?" And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, "Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.""
Jesus prefers believers to his own blood family and expects the same from others:
Mk 10:29-30 "... Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left ... brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children ..., for My sake and the gospel's, who shall not receive ... brothers and sisters and mothers and children ..."

But "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother ... brothers and sisters ..., he cannot be my disciple." (Lk 14:26) is probably the ugliest statements put in the mouth of Jesus in all the gospels.

Then, according to Jack Kilmon: "The Aramaic of Luke's source document, in part, was: "whoever comes to me and does not "hate" his father and mother ..."
The word "hate" in Aramaic, however, is an idiom meaning "to set aside." The saying was originally to SET ASIDE your mother, father, brothers, sisters, to follow Jesus ..."
If "corrected", then we would have:
GLuke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not set aside his father and mother ..., his brothers and sisters, ... he cannot be my disciple."
This "corrected" version would be very close of:
GMatthew 10:37a "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me ..."
Now, let's go back to:
GLuke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-- yes, even his own life --he cannot be my disciple." It seems that "Luke" added "yes, even his own life" to attenuate the awful idea of hate towards the family members. Obviously, the Q passage was deemed embarrassing. Consequently, in order to soften the blow, the "hate" was redistributed to everyone in the family, including the would-be disciple. That does alleviate the notion of hate from him to his relatives.

Notes:
a) "Luke" could have replaced "does not hate" by something like "does not set aside" or "prefers", but did not. Instead the author added up "yes, even his own life". That shows that "Luke" was reluctant to change the wording. Consequently, the "correction" was made by a small insertion.
b) The aforementioned parallels in this section are differently textually placed in GLuke & GMatthew.
Conclusion for 3):
With the "corrections", Lk 11:41a & Lk 14:26 are very close to passages appearing only in gMatthew (Mt  23:26 & 10:37). And the errors are easily explained from the translation of Aramaic to Greek. In any case, "Luke" did not copy the aforementioned sayings from GMatthew, but from a different source.
Note: let's compare Mt 6:12 "Forgive us our debts ..." with Lk 11:4 "Forgive us our sins ..."
"debts" & "sins" appear to be a translation of the Aramaic word 'xwbyn', which means 'debts' but also 'sins'. It seems the "Lord's prayer" was first composed in Aramaic but got translated differently.

4) GLuke against itself and showing ignorance of GMatthew

"Luke" reproduced a Q saying dead against the author's Gentile outlook (Lk 2:29-32, 7:4-10; Acts 10:1-48,11:1-18, etc.)
Lk 16:17 "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." (parallel in Mt 5:18)

Note: "least stroke of a pen. The Greek word for this phrase means "horn" and was used to designate the slight embellishment or extension of certain letters of the Hebrew alphabet." (NIV Study Bible, note on GMatthew 5:18)

If "Luke" had GMatthew instead of Q, why would he/she insert what hurts and ignore what pleases?
However, if "Luke" did not know GMatthew and felt obligated to incorporate all the Q sayings (let's say, because they had high credibility in Luke's community), the problem is solved.

How can it be explained Luke's rewriting from GMatthew what follows?
From:
"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. ..." (Mt 10:37)
To
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother ..., he cannot be my disciple." (Lk 14:26)
considering "Luke" reproduced "honor your father and mother" from GMark (Lk 18:20 & Mk 10:19) and "love your enemies" from Q (Lk 6:27,35 & Mt 5:44).

Note: the aforementioned parallel in this section is differently textually placed in GLuke & GMatthew.

As I said, "Luke" accepted Q sayings, even when they hurt.

And why "Luke" did not implement Matthean material most agreeable, such as:
- Mt 20:1-16, never too late to join (or rejoin) the Christian brotherhood (see Lk 15:11-32)
- Mt 25:35-45, charity to the destitute and poor, in order to enter the Kingdom (see Lk 6:34-35,10:30-37,11:5-8,14:13-14,16:9,19-28,19:8-9)
- Mt 27:19, a Roman woman declaring Jesus as a "righteous/just" ('dikaios') man (see Lk 23:47, a centurion saying the same). This could not have been missed by "Luke", considering the pro-feminist and pro-Roman stance of the gospel & 'Acts' (as explained here).

At that point, I assume my readers are convinced Q was a document (at least partly written in Aramaic) and "Luke" did not know about gMatthew. If it is so, let's proceed further.

B) Minor agreements between gLuke and gMatthew against gMark

According to Wikipedia:

"The "minor agreements"--the word "minor" here is not intended to be belittling--are those points where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark (for example, the mocking question at the beating of Jesus, "Who is it that struck you?", found in both Matthew and Luke but not in Mark). The "minor agreements" thus call into question the proposition that "Matthew and "Luke knew Mark but not each other."

Let's look at the example given by Wikipedia:
- Mk 14:65 "And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to strike him, saying to him, "Prophesy!" And the guards received him with blows."
- Lk 22:63-64 "And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and beat him. And they blindfolded him, and asked him, saying, Prophesy: who is he that struck you?"
- Mt 26:67-68 "Then did they spit in his face and buffet him: and some smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, you Christ: who is he that struck you?"

The three gospels have in common Jesus being beaten and "prophecy" but both gLuke and gMatthew add up  "who is he that struck you?"

Let's now look at the Lord's prayer:,
- Mk 11:25 "And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against any one; so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses." and 14:38 "Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."
- Lk 11:2-4 "And he said to them, "When you pray, say: "Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread; and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive every one who is indebted to us; and lead us not into temptation.
- Mt 6:9-13 "Pray then like this: Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Your kingdom come. Yours will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; And forgive us our debts, As we also have forgiven our debtors; And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil."

Both GLuke and GMatthew add up "hallowed be your name", "Your kingdom come" and "Give us each day our daily bread".In both examples "Luke" and "Matthew" used GMark, but supplemented it with common elements.

Notes:
a) The aforementioned parallels in this section are differently textually placed in GLuke & GMatthew.
b) The Q 'Jesus being beaten' and Q Lord's prayer can be considered (minor) Mark-Q overlaps.

However the "official" definition of Q is about:
Common material used by "GMatthew" and "GLuke" but not found in GMark.
But the common material may also include elements from GMark (as demonstrated), as also in Mark-Q overlaps.

So I think the conventional definition should be understood as such: Q is part of the common material found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke without, or with, apparent knowledge of the gospel of Mark.
Q=>GLuke & GMatthew (if no apparent knowledge of GMark)
OR
GMark=>Q=>GLuke & GMatthew (if with apparent knowledge of GMark)

Notes:
a) Other relationships: GMark=>GLuke AND GMark=>GMatthew (with no common material added in GLuke & GMatthew)
b) For the 'Q=>GLuke & GMatthew' case, the sayings & narratives (authentic or created) could have originated before or after GMark was written.

When Q is intermediary between GMark and Gluke & GMatthew, most "minor agreements" can be explained by the Q author getting a passage from gMark, then injecting in it (with some changes) new common wording not in gMark, which got copied by "Luke" & "Matthew" (with both, most of the time, still bringing some modifications and/or adding up more dissimilar items, including from gMark passage).

Therefore, Q would also include "minor agreements", strengthening Q as being a document instead of doing the opposite.

From Wikipedia : "Specifically, there are 347 instances (by Neirynck's count) where one or more words are added to the Markan text in both Matthew and Luke; these are called the "minor agreements" against Mark. Some 198 instances involve one word, 82 involve two words, 35 three, 16 four, and 16 instances involve five or more words in the extant texts of Matthew and Luke as compared to Markan passages."

Note: Christopher J. Monaghan has considerably less minor agreements than Neirynck in his book which also shows that the scholars who studied the minor agreements did not agree with each other on many items and lead them to different overall conclusions. And many items are contentious and rather puerile, in my view. As Monaghan wrote in one of his summary (page 60): "The question that naturally arises is that of where one draws the line, and on what basis."

C) The major Mark-Q overlaps

1) Jesus and Beelzebub

Mk 3:22-27 And the scribes that came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and, By the prince of the demons casteth he out the demons.
And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
And if a house be divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.
And if Satan hath rise up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.
But no one can enter into the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

Lk 11:15-22 But some of them said,  by Beelzebub the prince of the demons casteth he out demons.
And others, trying him, sought of him a sign from heaven.
But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them,
Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.
And if Satan also is divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out demons by Beelzebub.
And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges.
But if I by the finger of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you.
When
the strong man fully armed guardeth his own court, his goods are in peace:
but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him his whole armor wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.

It would be difficult to postulate this Q passage was written without Mark's gospel prior knowledge, or that "Mark" deleted part of some pre-existent Q material.

Rather, it seems a lot more plausible the Q author added up some narrative to improve the readability, remade the story about the strong man, then specified a reassuring clarification that Jesus by God (and not by Beelzebub) casts out demons.
Also, since it is widely accepted that "Matthew" and "Luke" inserted their own material in Markan passages (as for Mt 26:52-54, 27:19,24-25,51b-53,62-66, 28:2-4; Lk 9:31b-32, 23:56), it should not be surprising the Q author(s) did the same.

And it is most likely 'Satan' (and also 'Beelzebub' --see next note--) originated from GMark, and appears in Q because it "borrowed" Mk 3:26.

Note: 2Kings 1:8 describes Elijah in these words: "He was a man in a hairy [garment], and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins" (Darby), which is about the same as "Mark" depicted John the Baptist: "And John was clothed in camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins," (1:6 Darby).
Because GMark suggests John is Elijah (9:11-13) (but rejected in Jn 1:21), it is likely "Mark" knew about and used 2Ki 1:8 to support his point. And it seems "Mark" got the god's name from the same passage because, in the whole O.T., 'Beelzebub' (or rather "Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron" Darby) occurs only four times, all of them within the first sixteen verses of '2Kings' (1:3,4,6,16).

2) John and Jesus' baptisms:
On the following, could the Q author not know about GMark? Very unlikely
Mk 1:7-8 "After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
Q Lk3:16 "... I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."
Let's notice the addition of "with fire" in the Q version. It fits very well with the "coloring" of the Q passage about "John's baptism". Because, within only three consecutive Q verses, it features the apocalyptic "fire" prominently, as shown in the next quote.
One question may be asked: why would a Q author use this part of GMark?
Because it links two Q passages, as follows (rewritten Markan material in navy blue):
Mt 3:7-12 "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

3) The parable of the mustard seed:
Mark-Q overlaps can be explained the same way for the parable of the mustard seed: segments of GMark being rewritten with additional material put in.

- Mark's version:
Mk 4:30-32 "Again he said, "What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it? It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed you plant in the ground.
[allusion to the smallness of the initial Christian message or/and origin]
Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants,
[from a very little beginning, something unexpectedly large and strong can develop]
with such big branches that the birds of the air can perch in its shade.""

The imagery is evidently borrowed from:
Eze 17:23 "On the mountain height of Israel I will plant it; and it will bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a majestic cedar. Under it will dwell birds of every sort; in the shadow of its branches they will dwell."

- The probable Q version:
Lk 13:18-19 "Then Jesus asked, "What is the kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it to [very similar with Mk 4:30]? It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air perched [also translated as "roosted"] in its branches""

A Q writer might have thought that a plant (black mustard), even if it grows up to almost four feet tall, is rather fragile and unlikely to be used as a perch or a roosting place for birds. Therefore, this author dispensed with the botanical details of "Mark" and replaced the frail plant by a more appropriate (solid, tall and long-lasting) tree (as in Eze 17:23 quoted earlier). Furthermore a tree requires many years to grow (allowing for the tardy arrival of the Kingdom!), when the plant matures (and dies) in only one season.
In conclusion, the mustard seed parable in GMark presented serious flaws and was rewritten by a Q author.
He knew about Mark's version because the mustard seed was kept, even if there was no need to feature that particular seed. As a matter of fact, any (tree) seed would have been a lot more adequate.

Note: "Matthew" combined the two versions; consequently the plant is also a tree!
Mt 13:32 "... the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree ..."

4) "Jesus' temptations":
Additional material (Lk 4:2b-12, about 11 verses) about the alleged temptation in the desert appears to have been added. Why?
Likely because "Mark" had only a meager two verses about it, suspiciously too short:
Mk 1:12-13 "At once
[isn't it apparent that "Mark" wanted to extract Jesus from John the Baptist's entourage?]
the Spirit sent him out into the desert, and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan.
[but how, among sand and stones? No explanation is given by "Mark". Q will provide the answer]
He was with the wild animals; and the angels attended him."

Now, let's look at the first part of the expanded Q version:
Lk 4:1-3 "Then Jesus ... was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, being tempted for forty days by the devil. And in those days He ate nothing, and afterward, when they had ended, He was hungry. And the devil said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread."

Soon after, Jesus is "tested" again twice (Lk 4:5-13). Then why does assert Jesus was tempted in the desert during the forty days, that is before the three temptations (narrated afterwards) occur later?
Likely to accommodate GMark, written earlier.

Note: Moses is not tempted in his forty days on mount Sinai (ex 24-34). But he does not eat also!

5) From "sons of men" to "Son of man":
Mk 3:28-29a Darby "Verily I say unto you, that all sins shall be forgiven to the sons of men, and all the injurious speeches [with] which they may speak injuriously; [29=>] but whosoever shall speak injuriously against the Holy Spirit, to eternity has no forgiveness; ..."

Mt 12:31-32 Darby "For this reason I say unto you, Every sin and injurious speaking shall be forgiven to men, but speaking injuriously of the Spirit shall not be forgiven to men.
[32=>] And whosoever shall have spoken a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, ..."

Lk 12:10 Darby "and whoever shall say a word against the Son of man it shall be forgiven him; but to him that speaks injuriously against the Holy Spirit it shall not be forgiven."

Let's notice how close is Mt 12:32 relative to Lk 12:10, almost word by word. The closest we have in GMark is Mk 3:28-29a, which is "copied" (with some abbreviation) in Mt 12:31 (but ignored in GLuke). And considering "Luke" located Lk 12:10 at the end of a block containing a series of Q sayings (Lk 12:2-9, corresponding to the one in Mt 10:26b-33, in the same sequence), then it is rather certain Mt 12:32 and Lk 12:10 are Q.
However, even if the overall meaning of Mk 3:28 is different of the Q addition in Mt 12:32a & Lk 12:10a, the wording in this addition is very similar to the one in GMark.
Consequently, Q Mt 12:32 & Lk 12:10 appears to be rewritten from Mk 3:28-29a, with "Son of man" in evidence as generally it is in Q: Mk=14, Q=8 (Q being one third of GMark in size).
Also, the following statement, from Q itself, may have caused some of the content of Q Mt 12:32 & Lk 12:10:
Lk7:34 Darby "The Son of man has come eating and drinking, and ye say, Behold an eater and wine-drinker, a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners;" (also in Mt11:19)

Notes:
a) Other isolated Q rewriting of GMark material: Mk  4:22=>Mt10:26b & Lk 12:2, Mk 8:11-12=>Mt 12:39 & Lk 11:29, Mk 8:15=>Mt 16:6 & Lk 12:1, Mk 9:40=>Mt 12:30a & Lk 11:23a, etc.
b) Can we imagine "Matthew" created Q Mt 12:32 and had the audacity to display his handywork right after his copy (with some compression) of Mk 3:28-29a? I can't. But if the two sayings were known to come from sources (GMark & Q) which had some credibility in his community, then those sayings could be shown side by side.

D) There are similarities and few major contradictions between Mark's gospel and Q:

Clues about Q being influenced by GMark

1) In Q, Jesus is the "Son of Man", from mortal to cosmic redeemer, (as in GMark):
Lk 7:34 "'The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners."'"
Lk 9:58 "Jesus replied, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.""
who will come back unexpectedly:
Lk 12:40 "You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him. [notice the similarities with Mk13:32-37!]"
Lk 17:24 "For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other."
and during apocalyptic times:
Lk 17:26-27 "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all."
Jesus, as the Son of Man, is more than a sage/teacher in Q! And the Son of Man's future coming would imply he left first!

2) In Q, Jesus is also called "Lord" (Lk 6:46,7:6, 9:59, 10:2) and "Son (of God/the Father)" (Lk 4:3,9, 10:22), as in the gospels.
However he is not called "Christ" or "Son of David". But in Mk 8:29-30, only Peter calls him (once) "Christ", then "Jesus told them [the disciples] not to tell anyone about him". And in Mk 12:35-37, "Mark" "demonstrated" that "the Lord" is not a descendant of David.
It seems Q followed GMark on both counts.

Now let's address the apparent disagreements between GMark and Q:

3) The lack of material in Q about Jesus' Passion:
"Mark" considerably elongated it with controversial items, as I explained in "HJ-3a", Section 21 and "Parables and gospels", Section 5. Why add up more on an already long (and dubious) narrative! And then, Q is basically a collection of sayings, not of doings.
But there is a hint of the Passion in Q, a cross being carried (Mt 10:38, Lk 14:27) by others than Jesus (as in Mk 15:21). Also there is Jesus being hit (Lk 22:63-64 & Mt 26:67-68).

4) No resurrection appearance is mentioned in Q, but GMark had none originally (see "HJ-3a", Section 21).

5) There is no mention of sacrifice (for the benefit of others) in Q, but "Mark" suggested it in only two short passages:
Mk 10:45b "... [Jesus] to give his life as a ransom for many."
Mk 14:24 ""This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them."
Did Q think that was enough?
Was Q NOT warm to the concept of sacrifice?
Both questions can be answered by Yes, because Jesus is mainly perceived here as the "Son of Man" who will become the Savior, during a second coming. No sacrifice necessary!

E) Q is complementing and "correcting" Mark's gospel:

Other clues Q was influenced by GMark

1) As explained in "HJ-1b", Section 9, "Mark" made a very weak & faulty argument about John preparing the way for Jesus as the Christ. In Q Lk7:26-27, Jesus himself describes the mission of John.

Note:
(Jesus saying:) "This is the one about whom it is written: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you"" (Lk7:27b & Mt11:10b)
is very similar of
"I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way." (Mk 1:2b)
but shows notable differences with the only reference in the O.T., from 'Malachi':
"See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me [God]." (Mal l3:1a)
suggesting this Q passage was lifted out from GMark, and not from 'Malachi'.

2) In GMark, nothing is written about John knowing about the person of Jesus. In Q Lk 7:18-24, he does know!
Lk 7:20 "When the men came to Jesus, they said, "John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, 'Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?'""

3) In Mk 8:11b-12, an awkward statement raising doubts is made:
"To test him [Jesus], they ask him for a sign from heaven. He sighted deeply and said, "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell the truth, no sign will be given to it.""
In Q, the problem seems to have been somewhat rectified:
Lk 11:29,32b "Jesus said, "This is a wicked generation. It asks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah ...; for they [the Ninevites] repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here.""
That sign of Jonah is better than no sign at all!

Note: probably because this sign (Jesus outdoing Jonah about enticing people to repent) was not particularly convincing, "Matthew" will add to it:
Mt 12:40 "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man [Jesus] will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth [Hades]
[but according to the gospel, Jesus' death lasts only forty hours!]."
Still later, there is an overabundance of signs:
Jn 20:30-31a "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, ..."
From no sign to one, then from only one to many!

4) "Mark" did not provide any explanation on why Jesus sends his disciples by themselves:
Mk 6:6b-7 "Then Jesus went around teaching from village to village. Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two and gave them authority over evil spirits."
However, in Q, the explanation is given:
Mt 9:37-38 "Then he said to his disciples, "The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.""
The harvester (as Jesus) was featured in the Markan parable of the growing seed:
Mk 4:26-29 "... As soon as the grain is ripe, he puts the sickle to it, because the harvest has come."

F) From Mark's gospel to Q:

There are clues showing parts of Q not only "correcting" GMark, but also being written after the gospel was known.

1) Mk 12:26-27a "Now about the dead rising -- have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

Here, as extrapolated from Exodus3:6a (because of the present tense in "am"), it is suggested (incidentally) that the three patriarchs are (or will be) alive (and consequently "proving" "dead rising", the main point).
But in Q, that becomes a certitude:
Lk 13:28 "There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out."
The three patriarchs have become physical ("see") (and not just risen souls as in Philo's "The sacrifices of Abel and Cain, II"). And in Mk9:4, Moses and prophet Elijah have already been seen on the high mountain!

2) Lk 7:22 "Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, ..."
This passage is obviously inspired from Isaiah 29:18-19, 35:5-6 (except for the dead). However, in the whole of Q, there are no healing/revival stories about blind, lame, leper, deaf or dead. It seems the Q author (and his community) must have known of "references" in order to have Jesus claim that. Well, GMark has at least one specific narrated "example" for each:
- Blind cured: Mk 8:25
- Lame (= paralytic and/or the "shriveled hand" man) cured: Mk 2:12,3:5
- Leper cured: Mk 1:42
- Deaf cured: Mk 7:35
- Dead raised: Mk 5:42

Note: in GMatthew and GLuke, there is no account of deaf person(s) being cured.

3) In Mark's gospel, there are brief mentions of Jesus as the Son of God; but Jesus declares himself to be the Son only once (and NOT to his disciples or the crowds!):
Mk 14:61b-62a "Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am," said Jesus." Also in Mt26:63-64 & Lk22:70
But in Q, the Christology is a lot more advanced:
Mt 11:25-27 "At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.
[little children only and not to adults? See next note]
` Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
Note: Q does not provide any explanation about these "little children". However GMark does:
Mk 10:15 "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child [with innocence] will never enter it."

4) In GMark, Jesus is acknowledged as the "Son of God" by evil spirits (Mk 1:24, 3:11, 5:7).
In Q, the Devil himself knows about it (Lk 4:3-11).

5) In Mk 10:35-40, James and John ask Jesus some favors:
"Grant us that we may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on Your left, in Your glory [in heaven]."
Jesus objects to the specific request but suggests that prominent "seating" for the disciples is foreseen "but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared."
In Q, that becomes specified:
Mt 19:28 "... when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you [the disciples] who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, ..."

5) Mk 4:22 "For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open."
In Q, the statement becomes more direct and expanded upon as a militant "missionary directive":
Mt 10:26-27: "... There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs."
GMark features a few "missionary directives" (Mk 6:8-11) but Q added more (Lk 10:3, 10:5-6, 10:9, 10:16a). In view of the emphasis in Q about these directives (and militancy), it is likely that Mk4:22 was reworked in order to become one of those.

6) Cynicism and sandals:
The "missionary directives" (Mk 6:8-11, Mt 10:9-14, Lk 9:3-5, 10:2-12) are considered also one of the Mark-Q overlaps. In the Markan segment, we have:
Mk 6:8-9 "These were his instructions: "Take nothing for the journey except a staff --no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. Wear sandals but not an extra tunic.""

Note: let's notice "Mark" certainly never thought of Jesus as barefooted:
Mk 1:7b "... whose sandals I [John the Baptist] am not worthy to stoop down and untie."
In the Roman world of the first century C.E., the Cynic-like wandering sages were written about (mostly by Stoic philosophers) towards the end of the century (and more so later), but not earlier:
- Musonius Rufus (30?-100?) (presumably referring to early itinerant Cynic-like sages) "... only a cloak is preferable to wearing one [chiton]. Also going barefoot is better than wearing sandals, if one can it, for wearing sandals is next to being bound ..." (Fragment XIX)
- Dio Chrysostom (40?-120?) "Someone who is unkempt and wears his garment closely wrapped about him and has no companions on his walks, a man who makes himself the first target for examination and reproof. ... I am well aware that it is customary for most people to give the name of Cynic to men who dress as I do;" (Discourses 33.14, 34.2) (Note: at times during the 82-96 period, Dio lived as a Cynic-like vagabond)
- Epictetus (55?-135?) "And how is it possible that a man who has nothing, who is naked, house-less, without a hearth, squalid, without a slave, without a city, can pass a life that flows easily? See, God has sent you a man to show you that it is possible. ...
So do you
[would-be Cynics] also think about the matter carefully; it is not what you think it is. "I wear a rough cloak even as it is, and I shall have one then ... I shall take to myself a wallet and a staff, and I shall begin to walk around and beg from those I meet, and revile them ..."
Lo, these are words that befit a Cynic, this is his character, and his plan of life. But no, you say, what makes a Cynic is a contemptible wallet, a staff, ..."
(Discourses, 'On the Calling of a Cynic', 3.22)
- From this website: "Cynicism continued to decline in the first centuries B.C.E and C.E. and merely survived in the eastern Mediterranean in obscurity. Cynicism underwent a revival during the second century C.E. of the Roman empire."

The Cynic-like sages were known NOT to wear sandals but they did use a staff (stick or pole). But how to explain the transition from WITH staff & sandals (GMark) to WITHOUT staff & sandals (Q)?
It is probable the Q contributor wanted to have Jesus' disciples outdo the Cynic-like wanderers. So the staff and sandals were removed from them:
- Lk 9:3 "He told them: "Take nothing for the journey- no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic.""
- Lk 10:4a Darby "Carry neither purse nor scrip nor sandals ..."
- Mt 10:9-10 "Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper in your money belts, nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs; ..."
- Lk 22:35 "Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing" they answered." Is it realistic?
It also seems "Luke" wanted to project Jesus as not harsh on his followers, despite the draconian-like Q directives.
- But John the Baptist still expects the Messiah to wear sandals in Lk 3:16! However "Matthew" dared to make a "correction" and suggested that Jesus' sandals were carried (instead of being worn!):
Mt 3:11 "... whose sandals I [John the Baptist] am not fit to carry ..." (unnoticed by "Luke" (if knowing GMatthew!))

In conclusion, the "Cynic" element in Q, (wrongly) assumed "early" by many scholars, was concocted after GMark was known (follow the sandals!) and when the Cynic-like wandering sages were getting popular.

 

Note: other extreme (& socially unworkable!) cynic-like sayings appearing in Q:
Lk 6:29 "To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either."
(which Jesus is never said to have done in the gospels!)

G) Last remarks:

Up to the 1970's, a near consensus existed among critical scholars, stating "Q" was compiled around 80 C.E.

According to my insight, it was done by (mostly Gentiles tolerant) Jewish Christian(s) (Lk16:17,22:30) in Antioch, Syria.

Note: why Antioch?
Because it is the likely origin of GMatthew which is remarkably "in tune" with "Q" in the area of terminology and themes, as already shown in "Parables and gospels", Section 9.
But why would GMark (known by the "Q" people), despite its flaws and Gentile outlook, be well received into a Jewish Christian community?
Because it explained (and "prophesied") the destruction of Jerusalem and its people: God avenging his Son (Mk 12:1-9), taking precedence over the King not coming back to defend the holy city (the least that could be expected from a Messiah!). Explanations are in "Parables and gospels", Section 5.

Scholars who were/are separating "Q" in different strata (acknowledging parts of "Q" as late) do not agree with each other (and have many critics!), coming up with different "solutions". One of those, John Kloppenborg, probably the best known in this field, considerably changed his "model" and acknowledged candidly: "I might say at this point that I regard my stratigraphic proposals in Formation [of Q] and ExQ ['Excavating Q'] as interesting bits of guesswork, like Pentateuchal criticism. If it actually helps clarify the final state of the text, fine. If it doesn't, drop it. If another model comes along to make better sense of the text, then drop or modify my model. We are playing a heuristic game here, not trying to recreate the composition process; that, epistemologically, is completely beyond our capabilities." (Synoptic-S, On-line Seminar, Oct. 2000)

Other proposals exist, such as:
a) Q being a stand-alone mini-gospel pre-dating GMark
b) The aforementioned Farrer's hypothesis, with Q material copied by "Luke" from GMatthew: James Hardy Ropes (1934), Austin Marsden Farrer (1955) & Michael Douglas Goulder (1974, 1989)
c) The opposite view, with Q coming from GLuke to GMatthew: Christian Gottlieb Wilke (1838), Bruno Bauer (1841), Ronald V. Huggins (1992) & Evan Powell (2006)

If some scholars can make a case such as "Luke knew GMatthew", and others can argue "Matthew knew GLuke", that tells me that none of these two cases is securely anchored.

But the one I laid out on that page is the simplest and the most substantiated.

 

A good entry point for the debate, learned opinions and info about "Q" is here
I recommend Peter Kirby's article, 'The Existence of Q'

1