Go back up one level Return to home page

Merits of the Three-Source Theory

1. It is simple.

The Three-Source Theory does not need to posit a hypothetical document, for the reconstructed source can be identified with a historically-attested document, namely Papias' "logia".

Many leading advocates of the Two-Source Theory find it necessary to postulate multiple layers for Q. But the logia's high degree of coherence rules out the presence of multiple layers.

Therefore the Three-Source Theory is simpler than the Two-Source Theory.

2. It is supported by statistical analysis.

  1. A professor at Bern University has provided in-depth analysis (in German). [1]
  2. See also   A statistical study of the synoptic gospels

3. It retains the advantages of the Two-Source Theory.

  1. Mark was the first gospel to be written.
  2. Both Matthew and Luke based their gospels on Mark.
  3. Many of the sayings common to Matthew and Luke were derived from a common written source.
  4. At least 30 duplicate sayings ('doublets') in Matthew or Luke can be explained as resulting from overlaps between Mark and this written source.
  5. 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

The similarity in wording between Mark and Luke in the Triple Tradition suggests that Luke must have had his copy of Mark open in front of him when he was editing Markan material. So it is not beyond the bounds of plausibility to suggest that he also had his copy of Matthew open in front of him at the same time. Given this scenario it is easy to see how Luke could have taken advantage of some of Matthew's often stylistically motivated minor changes to the older text of Mark. Thus the Three-Source Theory can readily explain how the many 'minor agreements' between Matthew and Luke came about.

It explains why the text of Luke includes phrases characteristic of Matthew's style

The phrases include "you brood of vipers" (Mt 3:7 // Lk 3:7), "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Mt 8:12 // Lk 13:28), the combination of law and prophets (Mt 11:13 // Lk 16:16), and ανθρωπος + a noun (Mt 11:19 // Lk 7:34). The 3ST can account for each of these four parallels as resulting from Luke's use of Matthew. All the other examples of these phrases occur in redactional texts in Matthew.

It solves the problem of missing contexts

For example the phrase: "If you are the Son of God ..." (Mt 4:3 // Lk 4:3) makes perfect sense in its context in Matthew, only a few lines after Jesus has been declared to be "my [God's] beloved Son" (Mt 3:17). In Q the equivalent context is at best uncertain and at worst absent altogether. Also the miracle summary in Mt 11:5 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 dumb [2] (9:32ff.), and the raising of the dead (9:18ff.). Because it has a parallel in Lk 7:22 the summary appears in Q, but there it has no such explanatory context. The logical conclusion of the 3ST is that the passage including Mt 11:5 was not taken from a written sayings source, and that the verse originated in the context of the previously related healings.

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 multiple layers, the specialists' reaction to a mixed bag of material supposed to have been a real document, can now be consigned to the refuse heap of abandoned hypotheses. [3] For the logia was highly coherent from both literary and theological perspectives, and its neat structure of paired poetical sayings would have inhibited any substantial modification to the text.

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 (with the occasional mistranslation! [4] ), and merged distinctively by each synoptic author into his gospel account.

6. It is a compromise between its main rival theories.

As can be seen from the source relationship diagrams below [5], the diagram of the Three-Source Theory provides an elegant compromise between the predominant Two-Source Theory, and the Farrer-Goulder Theory for which Michael Goulder argued so persistently for 30 years.

Two-Source Theory Three-Source Theory Farrer-Goulder Theory
2SH diagram 3SH diagram Farrer diagram

7. In explanatory power, its main rival theories do not even come close.

The diagram below provides an insight into the relative explanatory power of these rival theories.
The 2ST readily explains the phenomena in purple [6] and blue. [7]
The FGT readily explains the phenomena in purple and red. [7]
The 3ST readily explains the phenomena in purple, blue, red and green. [8]

3ST explanatory features


Therefore the Three-Source Theory
solves the Synoptic Problem!

Notes for this page


1. R.Morgenthaler "Statistische Synopse" (Gotthelf Verlag, Zürich, 1971)
2. This is the only mismatch between the summary and the related healings, for the summary involves the deaf hearing where we would expect it to refer to the dumb speaking. However the difference is less apparent in the original Greek, for κωφος  can mean either deaf or dumb.
3. Most of its supporters have been unaware that the scope of the hypothetical Q was based on three factors: what Matthew chose to include from the logia, what Luke chose to include from the logia, and what Luke chose to include from Matthew. In other words, the scope of Q had not even been imagined, let alone established in a papyrus document, at the time when Matthew wrote his gospel!
4. See especially the notes on sayings A2, A15, D2 and D7 on the following page:
      Notes on the Sayings of Jesus
5. 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.
6. For details of the phenomena in purple, see Flaws in the 2ST (exception to): note 1. Markan priority ...
7. For details of the phenomena in blue and red, see Luke used Matthew AND a sayings source
8. With regard to the phenomena in green, sayings blocks are described on the page referred to above; for details of Semitic traits and translation errors, see Notes on the Sayings of Jesus and for an explanation of what Papias said about the logia, see Papias' LOGIA

Go back up one level Return to home page