The Case For and Against Q

In the Two Source Hypothesis, Matthew and Luke relied on Mark’s narrative outline from the baptism of Jesus to his crucifixion and empty tomb. The agreements between the “triple tradition” material, or passages shared by all three Synoptic Gospels, can be explained by arguing that Matthew and Luke were copying Mark’s text (though a few scholars have argued for an earlier version than the canonical text that may be called proto-Mark). As for the “double tradition” or the passages shared by Matthew and Luke that are not in Mark’s Gospel, the majority position is that Matthew and Luke did not know (or at least not use) each other’s work, but that the two evangelist’s independently copied a common “source” (German Quelle) that can be designated Q. Since there is near verbatim agreement in Greek between Matthew and Luke in some of their double tradition passages, some Two Source theorists reason that it is more likely that Matthew and Luke had a single Greek source for it rather than independently writing down their memories, drawing on common oral traditions, or translating Aramaic sources. Most of the double tradition consists of sayings of Jesus, but there are a few narratives such as the healing of the centurion’s servant (cf. Matt 8:5-13/Luke 7:1-10), which is why some scholars even refer to Q as a “sayings Gospel.” However, Q may not be a necessary hypothesis if Luke was copying Matthew for the non-Markan double tradition or vice-versa. Here is the case for and against “Q”:

Lack of Matthew’s Additions to Mark or Luke’s Additions to Mark in the Other’s Gospel

Either Matthew or Luke will make changes to their shared Markan source, but these changes will not show up in the other Gospel. The simplest explanation may be that Matthew and Luke did not know how the other evangelist was changing their common source. Here are some examples of Matthew’s changes to Mark’s text that do not appear in Luke’s Gospel:

• Matt 3:14-15 – the dialogue between Jesus and John the Baptist.
• Matt 9:9 – the tax collector’s name is changed from Levi to Matthew
• Matt 9:13 – a quote from Hosea to justify fellowship with tax collectors and sinners
• Matt 12:5-7 – additional justifications for Jesus’ Sabbath practices based on the actions of the temple priests and the Hosea quotation
• Matt 13:14-17 – Isaiah proof-text to explain why the crowd ‘s incomprehension
• Matt 14:28-31 – Peter walks on water [Luke omits Jesus walking on water entirely]
• Matt 16:2-3 – Pharisees can read the signs of the weather but not of the times.
• Matt 16:16-19 – imparting on Peter blessing and keys to the kingdom
• Matt 19:12 – becoming a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom
• Matt 19:9 – exception to the divorce prohibition [Luke omits Mark’s section on divorce entirely]
• Matt 27:19, 24 – Jesus’ innocence in Pilate’s wife’s dream and Pilate washing his hands
• Matt 28:9 – Jesus meets the women on route to relaying the angel’s message.

And here are some examples of Luke’s changes to Mark’s text that do not appear in Matthew’s Gospel:

• Luke 3:20 – John the Baptist is locked up in prison before Jesus is baptized
• Luke 4:16-30 – Jesus reads from the scroll of the book of Isaiah in the synagogue of Nazareth and reminds the audience that the prophets Elijah and Elisha were sent to foreigners.
• Luke 5:1-11 – The miraculous catch of fish precedes Jesus’s calling of the disciples and Peter pleads with Jesus to leave him because he is a sinful man.
• Luke 7:36-50 – the woman who anoints Jesus changed to a sinful woman from the city
• Luke 9:31 – Moses and Elijah speak with Jesus about his coming departure in Jerusalem
• Luke 22:31-32 – Jesus reassures Peter that he will be restored after his denials
• Luke 23:46 – Jesus’s last words from the cross and the Psalm that he quotes
• Luke 24:5-7 – the angelic figures statement is reworded to refer to Jesus’s prediction that he made while in Galilee

One could counter that it is striking that Matthew and Luke “independently” agree in adding birth narratives, resurrection appearances, and ethical teachings to their shared Markan source. Moreover, the double tradition could be alternatively explained as Matthew’s additions to Mark’s text that have been taken over by Luke or vice-versa. There are also cases where Matthew and Luke agree with each other against Mark in triple tradition passages, so you can see the discussion of the major and minor agreements below. As for Matthew’s additions to Mark’s text that Luke does not take over (or Luke’s additions to Mark’s text that Matthew does not take over), this could be explained by the choice to just follow Mark’s text as the principal source and to ignore the other evangelist’s changes for literary and theological reasons. For example, did either Matthew or Luke not like how the other tried to explain away Mark’s account of Jesus’s baptism by John and chose a different way to get around the problem (I look at this example further here)?

Lack of Matthew’s Distinctive Material (“M”) or Luke’s Distinctive Material (“L”) in the Other’s Gospel

“M” and “L” are used to designate the distinctive material in Matthew alone or Luke alone. However, Two Source theorists wonder why one of the evangelists did not choose to reproduce the other’s unique material, especially when there is M material that might fit Luke’s theological themes or L material that might fit Matthew’s theological themes. Here are some examples of M material:

• Matthew’s Nativity (genealogy with different names, Joseph’s dream, Immanuel, star, magi, tragedy of Bethlehem, flight to Egypt)  (chapters 1-2)
• The healing of two blind persons and a mute one (9:27-34)
• The call to take on Jesus’ yoke and find rest (11:28-30)
• The scribe trained for the kingdom of heaven (13:51-52)
• The parables of the wheat and tares, hidden treasure, fine pearl, good and bad fish, maidens’ lamps, unmerciful servant, workers in the vineyard, two sons, wedding garments, ten virgins, and sheep separated from goats (13:24-30; 13:44-50; 21:28-31; 25:1-13, 31-40; 18:23-35; 20:1-16; 21:28-32; 22:11-14; 25:1-13, 31-46)
• Plants that the Father has not planted will be uprooted (15:13)
• Paying the Temple Tax with a coin from a fishes mouth (17:24-27)
• Rules for how to regulate disputes in the church (18:15-20)
• The king burns down the city and a man without wedding garments is thrown out of the wedding (22:7, 10-14)
• Judas’ death by hanging (27:3-10)
• The earthquake and the risen saints (27:51b-53)
• The Great Commission on a mountain (28:16-20).

Here are some examples of L material:

• Luke’s Nativity (genealogy with different names, the birth of John the Baptist, Mary’s song, Zechariah’s prophesy, the census, shepherds, the presentation at the temple) (chapters 1-2, 3:23-38)
• The twelve year old Jesus in the temple (2:41-52)
• The woes to the rich (6:24-26)
• The power given to the seventy two exorcists (10:17-20)
• Jesus’s interactions with Mary and Martha (10:38-42)
• The parables of the two debtors, good Samaritan, rich fool, lost coin, prodigal son, dishonest manager, rich man and Lazarus, unjust judge, and Pharisee and tax collector (7:41-43; 10:25-37; 12:13-21; 15:8-10, 11-32; 16:1-9, 19-31; 18:1-8, 9-14)
• The warnings to repent or perish (13:1-5)
• Jesus heals a crippled woman on the Sabbath (13:10-17)
• Jesus invites the tax collector Zachaeus into his home (19:1-10)
• Jesus weeps over the fate of Jerusalem (19:41-44)
• The trial before Herod Antipas (23:6-12)
• The repentant bandit on the cross (23:39-43)
• The road to Emmaus (24:13-35)
• Jesus’s commissioning of his disciples and ascension (24:44-53)

One could counter that the “double tradition” as well as the major and minor agreements show that Luke (or Matthew) did take over some material from Matthew (or Luke) that was not found in Mark’s Gospel. In other instances, one of the evangelist’s may have purposefully rejected the other’s unique traditions or drastically rewrote them. For example, could Luke have rewritten Matthew’s infancy narrative as summarized here (cf. here, here)? Was Matthew’s parable of the two sons rewritten as Luke’s parable of the prodigal son or vice-versa? Did Luke rewrite Matthew’s account of Judas’s suicide or did Matthew rewrite Luke’s more violent account of Judas’s fateful fall in a field (cf. Acts 1:17-20)? Did Matthew rewrite Luke’s commissioning scene to fit his themes about obeying Jesus’s commandments or Luke rewrite Matthew’s commissioning scene to fit his themes about the forgiveness of sins? Did Matthew omit Luke’s more positive stories about tax collectors due to having a more negative view of them or did Luke omit Matthew’s church rule where expelled members are treated like tax collectors and Gentiles (cf. Matt 18:17)?

Lack of Agreement When Departing From Mark’s Order

Here are a couple of Synopses where one can compare the order of the material in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The independence of Matthew and Luke could be supported by how they often disagree when one of them relocates an episode in Mark to another point in the narrative. Matthew switches the healing of the leper (Mt 8:14-7; Mk 1:40-5) and Peter’s mother-in-law (Mt 8:14-7; Mk 1:29-34), relocates the calming of the storm followed by two demoniacs (Mt 8:23-34; Mk 4:36-5:20) and the healing of Jairus’ daughter as well as hemorrhaging woman (Mt 9:18-26; Mk 5:22-43), has Jesus designate the “Twelve” later in the narrative (Mt 10:2-4; Mk 3:16-9), and moves back predictions of persecution (Mt 10:17-23; Mk 13:9-13). Luke moves John’s imprisonment (Lk 3:19-20; Mk 6:17-8) and the Nazarene synagogue (Lk 4:16-30; Mk 6:1-6) and the woman anointing Jesus (Lk 7:36-50; Mk 14:3-9) forward in the narrative, moves the call of the first disciples (Lk 5:1-11; Mk 1:16-20) and Jesus’ true family (Lk 8:19-21; Mk 3:31-5) back in the narrative, switches the crowds following Jesus and the designation of the Twelve (Lk 6:12-19; Mk 3:7-19), and puts the saying about Jesus as one who serves at the Last Supper (Lk 22:24-7; Mk 10:45).

Farrer theorists might respond that Luke wished to largely remain faithful to the order of his principle source Mark rather than follow Matthew’s alterations, but Luke also had good theological reasons for making his own theological re-arrangements of Mark. For example, Luke removes John the Baptist to not leave the impression that he is superior to Jesus by baptizing him, sets the inaugural scene at Nazareth to establish many central themes of the Gospel, and only has the disciples start following Jesus after he has built his teaching reputation. The prologue in Luke 1:1-4 suggests that the evangelist believed he presented an orderly account in contrast to his predecessors, whether “order” either reflects a superior chronological or literary arrangement of the material. If Matthew knew Luke, one could argue that Matthew also chose to follow his Markan source rather than Luke at some points where Luke rearranged the material such as moving Jesus’s preaching in the synagogue in Nazareth or his anointing by a woman to an earlier point in his ministry.

Alternating Primitivity

The form of the double tradition seems more primitive at times in Matthew and other times in Luke. In the Two Source Hypothesis, either Matthew or Luke stick closer to the original wording of “Q” in copying specific passages. For example:

• Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9-13; Luke 11:2-4): did Matthew lengthen or Luke abbreviate the prayer and was “debts” (Matthew) or “sins” (Luke) the original wording?
• Beatitudes (Matt 5:3; Luke 6:20): did Matthew spiritualize the blessing or Luke abbreviate Matthew’s beatitude out of concern for the poor?
• Finger or Spirit of God (Matt 12:28; Luke 11:20):  would Luke avoid a reference to the Spirit in his source given the Pneumatology (study of the Spirit) in Luke-Acts or would Luke change the wording to “finger of God” in order to link Jesus with Moses (Exodus 8:19; 31:18)?
• Wisdom Christology (Matt 11:19; 23:34-35; Luke 7:35; 11:49): does Matthew change the source that views Jesus as a child of Lady Wisdom because Matthew wanted to identify Jesus as the embodiment of Wisdom (see also Matthew 11:28-30; Sirach 51:25-26) or was Luke not partial to the Wisdom Christology of his source? For more discussion on this point, see here.
• Sign of Jonah (Matt 13:14; Luke 11:30): did Matthew expand Luke’s sign so that it now clearly referred to the death and resurrection of Jesus or did Luke abbreviate Matthew’s sign so that it now referred to preaching the message of repentance?

Some proponents of either the Farrer or Matthean posterity theories might argue that either Matthew’s or Luke’s wording is always more primitive than the wording in the other Gospel. Other proponents might allow that one evangelist could be dependent on the other, while also knowing another oral version of the same story which may have had more primitive wording (e.g., did one of the evangelist’s know a version of the Lord’s prayer from their own Christian community’s liturgy in addition to knowing the wording in another Gospel?). This point is discussed further here.

The Different Order of the Double Tradition

In the Two Source Hypothesis, Luke alternates between using Mark as the principal source or Q as the principal source, so his Q material is reproduced in two blocks in 6:20-8:3 and 9:51-18:15 (exceptions include 3:1-4:6 and 19:11-27) and he has largely followed the order of Q. Matthew often (but not always) integrates Q sayings into Markan frameworks and organizes them into five thematic discourses that end with summary statements (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). In the Farrer Hypothesis, Luke alternates between following Mark’s text or Matthew’s text as the principal source in his different blocks, though he has mostly rearranged Matthew’s material. In the Matthean posterity hypothesis, Matthew has taken the material from Luke’s non-Markan blocks and put it in new Markan frameworks when composing his five discourses. Of course, their editorial procedures are more complicated when one examines a couple of Synopses in more detail.

If Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels independently of each other, this would explain why they have mostly contextualized the verses in the double tradition in very different contexts (e.g., Matthew’s five discourses or Luke’s two blocks). For example, the “Sermon on the Plains” in Luke 6:20-49 is much shorter than the “Sermon on the Mount” in Matthew 5-7 and some of Luke’s parallel sayings appear at other points in chapters 11 to 16. However, there is a counterargument that Matthew and Luke drew on the same Markan text in locating their Sermon on the Mount/Plains, an agreement that seems unlikely if they were written independently of each other (cf. pp. 151-55 in Francis Watson’s Gospel Writing, 151-155 and pp. 562-63 in John Kloppenborg’s review). Also, proponents of the Farrer hypothesis have argued that Luke broke up lengthy discourses in both the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. Try this exercise: look at the different literary contexts where Matthew and Luke place double tradition sayings such as on the Lord’s prayer (Matt 6:9-14; Luke 11:1-4), John the Baptist’s status (Matt 11:2-19; Luke 7:18-35), radical discipleship (Matt 8:19-22; Luke 9:57-60), instructions for missionaries (Matt 10:10, 12-16; Luke 10:3-11), the blessedness of the disciples (Matt 13:16-17; Luke 10:23-24), the parable of the lost sheep (Matt 18:12-13; Luke 15:4-5), the disciples sitting on (twelve) thrones (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30), or the oracles of eschatological judgement (Matt 24:26-28, 37-41; Luke 17:23-24, 26-37). For one case in point, Matthew places the Lord’s prayer in the context of rebuking religious hypocrisy (6:1-18 on almsgiving, prayer, and fasting), while Luke has it precede a parable and other sayings about perseverance in prayer (11:1-13). This debate must also be informed by scholarly research into ancient composition practices more generally (see here).

The Distinct Profile of Q

Although some scholars believe that the “double tradition” derives from a mixture of oral and written sources in Aramaic and Greek, many Q specialists insist that Q has a distinct literary and theological profile that differs from both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. For instance, some scholars detect both wisdom and Deuteronomistic themes in Q, with the latter theme evident in the portrayal of Jesus as the last in the line of rejected prophets in this unrepentant generation (cf. Seeley, Tuckett, Kloppenborg). For Farrer theorists, “Q” is the material that Luke extracted from Matthew that he was positively disposed to, so it is not a surprise that its themes stand out from the material that Luke did not take over from Matthew (“M”) nor from Luke’s own distinctive material (“L”). Nevertheless, some of it does accord with Luke’s theological interests; for instance, Luke omits Jesus’s ransom saying in Mark 10:45 (but see the similar imagery for the death of Jesus in Acts 20:28) and the book of Acts express a Deuteronomistic theology in which the persecution of the prophets culminated in the death of the Righteous One (e.g., Acts 7:52). Here are some online resources that look more closely at Q.

Minor Agreements against Mark

If Matthew and Luke independently used Mark, any agreements that they make to Mark should be entirely coincidental. However, there are literally hundreds of minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark; virtually every episode in the triple tradition has them. Many examples are trivial, but some create an issue for the presumed independence of Luke from Matthew:

• Jesus is moved with “anger” (or “compassion”) at the request of the leper to make him clean (Mark 1:40-42), but the emotion is omitted in Matthew 8:2-3 and Luke 5:12-3.
• Matthew 4:13 and Luke 4:16 agree on the rare spelling Nazara
• The Sabbath is made for humankind in Mark 2:27, but this line is omitted in Matthew 12:8 and Luke 6:5.
• The disciples are given the mystery of the kingdom in Mark 4:11, but the mysteries of the kingdom to know in Matthew 13:11 and Luke 8:10.
• Jesus rise in three days in Mark 8:31, but on the third day in Matthew 16:21 and Luke 9:22.
• Jesus directly answers the high priest directly in Mark 14:62, but Matthew 26:64 and Luke 26:70 have the more equivocal “you say.”
• The guards mock Jesus to prophesy in Mark 14:65, but they specify to prophesy “who hit you” in Matthew 26:67-8 and Luke 22:64.

For a full list of minor agreements and explanations for how they are accounted for in the Two Source Hypothesis, see Frans Neirynck, The Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke Against Mark with a Cumulative List. Two Source theorists are forced to explain them away based on the following options:

• Matthew and Luke had access to an earlier form of Mark (“proto-Mark”) that had these readings and it is the canonical edition of Mark that changed them.
• Matthew and Luke happened to make the same common-sense changes to Mark’s grammatical or stylistic errors.
• Matthew and Luke co-incidentally made similar changes in updating or correcting an earlier theological statement in Mark.
• Luke was independent of the text of Matthew, but in touch with an oral tradition that had been influenced by Matthew or vice-versa.
• Later scribes harmonize the texts of Matthew and Luke.
• Luke mainly relied on Q and Mark, but may have had minimal contact with Matthew to explain some of Matthew’s subsidiary influence.

Major Agreements against Mark or Mark-Q Overlaps

There are times that Matthew and Luke agree to a larger extent against Mark such as the narratives about the baptism (Mark 1:4-11; Matt 3:1-17; Luke 3:1-23), wilderness testing (Mark 1:12-13; Matt 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13), and the charge of being in league with Beelzebub (Mark 3:23-30; Matt 12:25-32; Luke 11:17-23 + 12:10). For instance, Matthew and Luke agree that John castigated certain people as vipers, warned them to not suppose they will escape judgment by appealing to their descent from Abraham, and predicted a coming one who baptizes with water and fire. Mark follows this with Jesus’ confrontation with Satan and wild animals in the wilderness, but Matthew and Luke do not feature wild animals and agree on the three temptations despite differing on their order. Two Source theorists appeal to “Mark-Q” overlaps, meaning that Mark and Q narrate some of the same stories or sayings even though Mark and Luke generally locate them in different contexts after Matthew 4:13 and Luke 4:16. Note also that some of the major agreements involve doublets in which, so the theory goes, Matthew cites a saying about a sign in 16:1-4 (cf. Mark 8:11-12) and 12:38-40 (cf. Luke 11:29-30) and about divorce in 19:3-9 (cf. Mark 10:2-12) and 5:31-32 (cf. Luke 16:18) which presumably derive from Mark and Q respectively. However, Farrer and Matthean posterity proponents respond that the simpler explanation for these major agreements against Mark is that, in these examples, Luke is exclusively following Matthew’s Gospel as the source rather than Mark’s Gospel or vice versa. Also, some Two Source theorists try to account for the overlaps by arguing for Mark’s dependence on Q, but that creates new complications about why Mark did not reproduce more of Q’s content.

Editorial Fatigue

Mark Goodacre raised this argument in support of the Farrer Hypothesis. The idea is that an evangelist introduces changes when copying a source, but then accidentally reverts back to the source even when it contradicts the changes that were made, and you can read the examples that Goodacre proposes in his article. A rebuttal against his argument can be found in this article.