Extent of Q

My own study of Matthew's and Luke's gospels has led me to conclude that we have greatly underestimated the extent of Q. It is quite likely that Matthew only includes about half of Q, especially considering that Matthew is not following Q's order as he is Mark's. It is also likely that Luke has left out portions of Q, since Luke leaves out significant portions of Mark. (See the Statistics page for evidence details on how careful Matthew and Luke are in copying Q.) Can we discover Q passages in Matthew's unique material and in Luke's unique material? Here are a few papers I have written arguing that we can:

• Lost Portions of Q Found ... in the Lukan Travel Narrative (SBL, 2012). This paper seeks to demonstrate that almost all of the Lukan Travel Narrative is from Q, showing that stylistic peculiarities of Q can be found in L, that narrative introductions to Q passages in Luke were likely taken from Q, and that Q likely had a chiastic structure. See my JSNT article below for an updated version of the first part of this paper.
• Luke 3:1-4:30: How Much Is from Q? (EGLBS, 2013). This paper does for Luke 3-4 what "Lost Portions" did for Luke 10-18. I demonstrate that Luke 3:1-2 likely reflects the original opening of Q, that the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3 likely came from Q, and that the Nazareth sermon is from Q, as well as other passages in between.
• The τις εξ υμων Similitudes and the Extent of Q (JSNT, 2016). Most recent studies of Q are built on the assumption that Q is not much more extensive than the double tradition, a questionable assumption given that Mark is much more extensive than the components of Mark that are found in both Matthew and Luke and that Matthew's selective rather than consecutive approach to Q may have caused him to leave out many verses of Q. This article considers three similitudes unique to Luke that begin with the phrase τις εξ υμων (Lk. 11.5-8; 14.28-33; 17.7-10) as well as one that is paralleled in Matthew but has been omitted from the Critical Edition (Lk. 14.5 par. Mt. 12.11-12) and argues that all four of these passages are from Q. The criteria of Vassiliadis and Kloppenborg for finding Q passages in Lukan Sondergut are used, with particular emphasis on Kloppenborg's 'stylistic coherence'.
• Q as a Narrative Gospel (EGLBS, 2015). This paper surveys the history of Q research to demonstrate the presuppositions that led to and propogated the idea that Q was either a collection of sayings or a sayings gospel and suggests that it is time to recognize Q as a narrative gospel. Six reasons are offered for seeing Q as a narrative gospel: (1) when Luke speaks of his sources he calls them "narratives"; (2) Q narrates events; (3) Matthew's use of Q may have caused him to omit other narrative elements; (4) there are significant minor agreements in Markan narrative passages; (5) "Q contains all the elements of narrative"; and (6) Q's purpose is to portray Jesus as the Coming One, not to introduce his wisdom.
• Maximalist Q (International Conference on the Q-Hypothesis, Roskilde, Denmark, June 2015). This paper argues that a maximalist approach to Q is preferable based on how much of Mark Matthew and Luke omit but also makes better sense of the minor agreements and the order of the material in Matthew and Luke.
• A Passion Narrative in Q? FIRST DRAFT (SBL, 2015). This paper is currently in a preliminary form and will go through a lot of changes before SBL, but I wanted to make available now what I have already gleaned from studying the passion narrative. I offer here a reconstruction of Q 19-23.

Note:All information on this site is copyright 2015 David B. Sloan and may not be used without express written permission of the author.
Please contact him at

Over the next few months I will be compiling more data and working through passages that may be from Q, and I will post that information here.