Throughout my academic career I have always wondered about Q. To most scholars, Q is a hypothetical gospel used by Synoptic authors. Depending on what source hypothesis you might adhere to Q will hold different weight. I have always believed in the plausibility of the existence of Q, yet have always struggled with the capacity in which it functioned.
I recently read an article by Holly E. Hearon titled, "The Implications of Orality for Studies of Biblical Text. In the article Hearon identifies the problems caused by scholarship that has continued to focus primarily on the "written dimension of rhetorical culture." In a few instances she does this concerning Q and the Synoptic authors' use of Q and of each other. At this point Hearon recognizes the work of James Dunn. Dunn in looking at the differences in certain stories in the Synoptics feels that the oral nature of the culture allowed for different versions of the same story to be produced completely seperate from each other. The point Hearon is trying to make is that source hypotheses like the two-source hypothesis causes us to look at the as a written culture with authors borrowing pieces from other written sources, not as an oral culture where storytellers add their own twist on a version of the story already in their possesion.
So what does this mean for Q? In a primarily written culture Q stands as a hypothetical source full of random sayings. In an oral culture Q becomes more. Q becomes an outline used by performers, by storytellers. Textual scholarship should complete its shift towards orality by recognizing Q as such an outline. Instead of being known as "the sayings gospel," it should be known as "the story gospel."
