Fundamental flaws in the Two Source Theory

INTRODUCTION

The focus on this site is much narrower.
The priority of Mark is well established. ^[1] The arguments in favour of this are in my opinion overwhelming. They can be found in most of the standard textbooks on New Testament Introduction. From time to time various scholars have argued for the existence of a proto-Matthew or a proto-Mark. Such theories have not won wide acceptance, and will not be considered further here.

1. A SIMPLISTIC ASSUMPTION

   The prevailing Two Source Theory (hereafter "2ST") posits that the author of Matthew's gospel (hereafter "Au_Matt") and the author of Luke's gospel (hereafter "Au_Luke") independently used the same two written sources, namely Mark and the sayings source Q. However ever since the publication of A.M.Farrer's "On Dispensing with Q", ^[2] there has been a growing unease with the 2ST. The most persistent modern supporter of Farrer's view that Au_Luke used Mark and Matthew has been Michael D. Goulder, who wrote a two-volume commentary on Luke in order to demonstrate the feasibility of Au_Luke's dependence on these two written sources only. ^[3] Hence the label "Farrer-Goulder Theory" (hereafter "FGT"). It is frequently assumed that the 2ST and the FGT are the only reasonable alternatives given Markan priority. This assumption is simplistic, as is clear from the following quotation of C.M.Tuckett:

   "It might be that Luke used Q for most of the 'double tradition', but that he also used Matthew's gospel and used it occasionally. Such a theory..... is not logically impossible and has had a number of distinguished supporters, past and present." ^[4]

   Yet none of these supporters has set out a systematic analysis of the basis and implications of such a Three Source Theory (hereafter "3ST").
   Before we attempt to do this, we must deal with a common objection: if Au_Luke knew Matthew, surely this eliminates the need for a sayings source. This is not the case. For the arguments from doublets and from the relative primitivity of some of the Lukan pericopae (e.g. 6:20b;11:2b-4), do not simply vanish if it is decided on other grounds that Au_Luke knew Matthew. Furthermore, it is doubtful whether mere oral tradition could explain how Matthew, written 50 years after the crucifixion, could contain so many authentic-looking sayings which form the majority within the group normally labelled 'Q'. ^[5]

2. LUKE'S DEPENDENCE ON MATTHEW

   The main evidence that Au_Luke knew Matthew is as follows:

   • Au_Luke refers to "many writers" who have "undertaken to draw up an account of the events [relating to Jesus]" (Lk 1:1). Q does not fit this description, and under no stretch of the imagination could one gospel (Mark) be referred to as "many". So allowing for a slight exaggeration, Au_Luke was probably referring to Mark and Matthew. ^[6] This is the common sense explanation of the verse. Knowing about Matthew and being a good scholar, Au_Luke would undoubtedly have made sure that he obtained a copy of it. He decided to write his own account (Lk 1:3), which can only mean that he was not satisfied either with Mark or with Matthew. Clearly Au_Luke thought he could do better, so we should not be too surprised to find him correcting, developing and even entirely rewriting passages which he found in the earlier gospels.
   • Luke's Sermon on the Plain is most naturally understood as being named (in effect) and framed by someone who knew Matthew's Sermon on the Mount. Surely it is not a coincidence that Au_Luke had Jesus come down a hill and stop on level ground (Lk 6:17), which looks like a deliberate contrast with Au_Matt's "he went up a mountain". Nor is it a coincidence that Au_Luke created a sermon scenario framed by "he began to speak" (6:20) and "when he had finished addressing the people" (7:1) which closely resembles the Matthean frame "he began to address them" (5:2) and "when Jesus had finished this discourse the people ..." (7:28). For the sermons' closing sentences in both Matthew and Luke are editorial ^[7] and so cannot have been derived from the sayings source.
   • According to U.Schnelle there are about 700 'minor agreements' between Matthew and Luke against Mark. ^[8] It is very unlikely there would have been so many if Au_Luke had never seen a copy of Matthew's gospel. Schnelle tries to solve the problem of the minor agreements by proposing that Au_Matt and Au_Luke used a revised edition of Mark which he labels 'Deuteromark'. But he can see no theological differentiation between the canonical Mark and Deuteromark, nor any rationale for the production of Deuteromark, calling it merely a "stratum of editorial revision". ^[9] This is quite unsatisfactory. Moreover no explanation is offered as to why the supposed first edition (Mark) is still extant whereas the supposed later edition (Deuteromark) has been lost.
   • As we shall see below, several of the double tradition pericopae seem not to have been in the sayings source, either because of inconsistency, or because they appear to have been composed by Au_Matt. The most likely alternative is that Au_Luke took them from Matthew.
   • Many scholars date Luke five years or more later than Matthew. If this relative dating is correct, then notwithstanding the limitations of first century communications it is hardly conceivable that Au_Luke, the most scholarly of the synoptic writers, could have been ignorant of what was to become the most popular synoptic gospel in the early centuries of the Christian Church.
   
   

3. THE INCONGRUITY OF Q

   Q as normally understood is quite incongruous as a stand-alone document.
   • The mixture of many sayings with a few narratives in Q makes the identification of its genre extremely problematic. ^[10]
   • Moreover the narratives in Q are concentrated near the beginning. Thus Q appears to make a start on the story of Jesus, then abandon it, escaping into the realm of monologue. In an attempt to justify this, Kloppenborg has found parallels in Near Eastern literature which include examples of an "account which demonstrates in narrative fashion that the sage is indeed worthy of the hearer's attention". ^[11] But in the more relevant arena of early Jewish or Christian documents, there is no parallel with such a demonstration. The miracles in Q do not preface the sayings, but they are all in the first half, making their distribution appear simply lopsided.
   • Even the monologue lacks consistency, for some of the sayings are attributed to John the Baptist.
   • In addition, Q is so incoherent that its leading advocates have thought it necessary to divide it up, often into three layers or editions. The 2ST would have been more convincing if Q had not lent itself to this surgery.
   • It is impossible either to date or to locate the original composition of Q. ^[12] It has no identifiable  Sitz im Leben. This is very strange considering how much we know about the early followers of Jesus from Acts and the letters of Paul. It is further testimony against the existence of a document too closely tied to the double tradition material.
   • There is no independent witness to the existence of Q outside the synoptic gospels.

   Notes

   1. Markan priority remains a cornerstone for the great majority of synoptic scholars. It has received further support recently from Mark Goodacre's "Fatigue in the Synoptics" in New Testament Studies 44 (1998) 45-54

   2. In D.E.Nineham (Ed.), Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R.H.Lightfoot (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955) 55-88

   3. M.D.Goulder, Luke: A New Paradigm (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989)

   4. C.M.Tuckett, "On the Relationship between Matthew and Luke", New Testament Studies (30) 1984, 130

   5. The role of oral tradition is much disputed. We regard it as quite unable to explain the authentic-looking sayings in Matthew for two main reasons. Firstly even in Paul's time oral tradition was not stable, as we can see from his complaint in Gal 1:6 about the Galatians' readiness to replace one "gospel" by another. (For this point I am indebted to T.J.Weeden). Secondly, sayings could be distorted even where a written source was being used, e.g. "You are the Christ" in Mk 8:29 became "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" in Mt 16:16. After 50 years in oral tradition, few Matthean sayings would have retained signs of authenticity.

   6. Goulder refers to "... the many guests at the great dinner in ch. 14, who turn out to be only three" (Ibid., 681). This gives some support to the proposal that Au_Luke referred to the author of Mark plus the author of Matthew as "many".

   7. W.D.Davies & D.C.Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988-1997) I, 724

   8. U.Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings (ET, London: SCM, 1998) 170

   9. Ibid., 171-72

   10. Ibid., 191f.

   11. J.S.Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 326

   12. Davies & Allison, ibid., I,121
   

   Go back up one level

   Return to home page

   Go to next page