Merits of the Three Source Theory
1. It is simple
Most leading advocates of the Two Source Theory postulate at least three layers for Q. In the case of sQ there is no need to postulate multiple layers. Firstly sQ is much more coherent from both a literary and a theological perspective. Secondly non-trivial changes to the sayings would have been likely to spoil either their poetry or the symmetry of their links into pairs.
The Three Source Theory does not need to posit a hypothetical document, for sQ can be identified with a historically-attested document, namely Papias' "logia".
Therefore the Three Source Theory is much simpler than the Two Source Theory.
2. It is supported by statistical analysis
- A professor at Bern University has provided in-depth analysis (in German).
[1]
- See also
A statistical study of the synoptic gospels
3. It retains the advantages of the Two Source Theory
- Mark was the first gospel to be written.
- Both Au_Matt and Au_Luke based their gospels on Mark.
- Many of the sayings common to Matthew and Luke were derived from a common written source.
- At least 30 duplicate sayings ('doublets') in Matthew or Luke can be explained as resulting from overlaps between Mark and this written source.
- John (of the four gospels probably the last to be written) had no effect on the composition of the synoptics.
4. It solves the problems left unanswered by the Two Source Theory.
It explains the 'minor agreements' between Matthew and Luke against Mark
It is clear that Au_Luke generally preferred Mark to Matt as a source, for in the triple tradition, the text of Luke is closer to the text of Mark than to the text of Matthew. Evidently Au_Luke had his copy of Mark open in front of him when he was editing Markan material.
Most of the numerous minor agreements can probably best be explained as resulting from Au_Luke's memory of the text of Matt, which he would undoubtedly have studied with great care (c.f. Luke 1:1 "..... after investigating everything carefully .....").
It solves the problem of the incoherence of Q as currently defined
The odd mixture of a few isolated narratives with many sayings is now discarded, as is the pollution of Jesus' sayings with those of John the Baptist. Furthermore, the detailed division of the material into three or more layers, which the incoherence of the document had forced upon scholars, can now be consigned to the refuse heap of abandoned hypotheses. For not only is the logia highly coherent, but its very neat structure would have inhibited any substantial modification to the text.
It solves the problem of missing contexts
The clearest example is the miracle summary in Mt 11:5, which looks as if it was designed to match the healings of the blind (9:27ff.), the lame (8:5ff., 9:1ff.), the lepers (8:1ff), the deaf (9:32ff.), and the raising of the dead (9:18ff.). The summary appears in Q but with no such explanatory context.
5. It sheds new light on the birth of Christianity by supplying the missing historical link
The prevailing synoptic theory sheds no light on the enormous gulf between the Jewish Aramaic-speaking Jesus movement in Jerusalem ca. 30 CE - 60 CE, and the first Christian Greek gospel ca. 70 CE. The 3ST provides the missing link: an Aramaic collection of the sayings of Jesus produced in Jerusalem by his first followers, then later selectively edited, translated into Greek, and merged distinctively by each synoptic author into his gospel account.
As can be seen from the source relationship diagrams below
[2], the diagram of the Three Source Theory provides an elegant compromise between the predominant Two Source Theory, and the Farrer-Goulder Theory for which Prof. Michael Goulder has argued so persistently over a period of at least 20 years.
| Two Source Theory |
Three Source Theory |
Farrer-Goulder Theory |
 |
 |
 |
Notes for this page
1. R.Morgenthaler "Statistische Synopse" (Gotthelf Verlag, Zürich, 1971)
2. There is evidence that the first edition of Luke lacked the birth narratives, i.e. Luke 1:5-2:52. (For example, they are inappropriately placed before the genealogy; the formal language of 3:1 ff. follows more naturally after 1:4.) But the presence or the absence of a second edition can be held together with any of the three theories. So for simplicity the diagrams here show only a single edition of Luke.